Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas Identifying and addressing gaps and challenges Revita Wahyudi, Farida Sondakh, and Vina Noor AR Permatasari May 2024 This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions © 2024 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Attribution Please cite the work as follows: “Wahyudi, Revita; Sondakh, Farida; and Permatasari, Vina Noor AR. 2024. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas: Identifying and addressing gaps and challenges.” © World Bank.” ii Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas Identifying and addressing gaps and challenges Revita Wahyudi, Farida Sondakh, and Vina Noor AR Permatasari May 2024 Acknowledgements This study was carried out by Oxford Policy Management Indonesia (OPMI) under the leadership of Asha Williams, Ekki Syamsulhakim, Ilsa Meidina, and Sara Giannozzi. The team thanks Gracia Hadiwidjaja for her early contributions to the study design. Data analysis for the report was provided by Abror Tegar Pradana and Rachmat Reksa Samudra. The team is grateful for the insightful feedback and suggestions on the report’s content provided by Aline Coudouel, Juul Pinxten, Manuel Salazar, Jonathan Marskell, Maria Andriani Tambunan, and Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) in Indonesia. Editing of the report was done by Sheila Town. The team thanks Yasser El-Gammal for his oversight and guidance; and Rizky Fitriany for her diligent administrative support. The team extends special thanks to study participants for candidly sharing their experiences and providing valuable insights to inform this report, and to Government of Indonesia officials for their useful guidance on the study design and findings, including Local Government staff in Bengkulu Utara, Donggala, and Seram Bagian Barat; the National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas), the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Social Security Administration Agency (BPJS), and the National Team for the Acceleration of Poverty Reduction (TNP2K). Funding for this study was provided through the Australia World Bank Indonesia Partnership (ABIP) by the Government of Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The team thanks the Australian Government for their generous support. iv Executive Summary Indonesia has made significant strides in expanding its Social Protection (SP) system, particularly in the last ten years. Social assistance has grown substantially, with Government of Indonesia (GoI) expenditure more than doubling since 2009, reaching Indonesian Rupiah (IDR) 161.03 trillion (US$10.14 billion) in 2022. Key programs such as the Family Hope Program (Program Keluarga Harapan - PKH) Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT), Program Sembako food assistance, and the Smart Indonesia Program (Program Indonesia Pintar - PIP), a cash transfer for poor and vulnerable students have played a crucial role in extending coverage and improving delivery of social assistance. Some of these reforms have led to a significant reduction in poverty. The shift from providing rice subsidies (Raskin) to offering targeted voucher-based food assistance (Bantuan Pangan Non-Tunai – BPNT – now Program Sembako), for example, resulted in better targeting and reduced poverty among the poorest 15 percent of households by 20 percent. Health insurance coverage (Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional - JKN) has also expanded, contributing to a notable reduction in the proportion of the population living in poverty, from 19.1 percent in 2000 to 9.5 percent in 2022. However, challenges persist in rural areas, where in 2023, the poverty rate was still 12.2 percent compared to 7.3 percent in urban areas. Extreme poverty is highly concentrated in rural provinces, reaching 23.8 percent in Nusa Tenggara Timur and 34.5 percent in Papua in 2023. Rural populations continue to face obstacles to accessing Social Protection programs, leading to disparities in education, healthcare, and access to clean water and other services. This assessment aims to identify barriers that remote rural communities face in accessing four crucial social assistance and insurance programs, and proposes practical measures to improve that access. Commissioned by the World Bank and conducted by Oxford Policy Management (OPM), the focus of the research covered the following selected social assistance and social insurance programs: the PKH Conditional Cash Transfer, Program Sembako, Village Fund Direct Cash Assistance (Bantuan Langsung Tunai-Dana Desa / BLT-DD), and the Social Security Administration Agency’s Employment Insurance (Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial – BPJS – Ketenagakerjaan). This research collected primary data from Western, Central, and Eastern Indonesia, with a specific emphasis on villages categorized as ‘remote areas.’ The classification of remote areas aligns with that utilized by PKH Akses, which is a strategy to modify the implementation arrangements for PKH in ‘challenging areas.’ These PKH Akses districts are identified based on a set of criteria focusing on factors such as geographical conditions, access to services, the presence of health and education facilities, human resources, and the availability of financial institutions for delivering benefits. Data was collected at the subnational level in three locations: Bengkulu Utara, Donggala and Seram Bagian Barat (SBB). The selection of research sites followed a staged process, starting from the provincial level and concluding at the village level. Various factors were considered in site selection, including poverty rates, the categorization of locations under PKH Akses, and logistical feasibility. This research conducted for the assessment was primarily qualitative and employed a participatory methodology. It engaged community stakeholders to understand the barriers affecting impoverished households in remote areas, while considering the capacity of local governments to provide Social Protection services. The approach placed emphasis on repeated consultations with key stakeholders throughout the research process, ensuring continuous feedback and the inclusion of diverse perspectives, through key informant interviews (KIIs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs), alongside focus group discussions (FGDs). Analytical and policy input was actively sought from various entities, including national government agencies such as the National Development Planning Agency (Badan Perencana Pembangunan Nasional - Bappenas), the Ministry of Social Affairs, the National Team for the Acceleration of Poverty Reduction (Tim Nasional Percepatan Penanggulangan Kemiskinan - TNP2K), and BPJS Employment Offices. Interviews Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges v were also conducted at the district, sub-district, and village levels. A total of 185 respondents (59 male and 126 female) participated. In analyzing the data, the research focused on six areas of focus, aligned to the delivery chain followed by most Social Protection programs. These included (i) coverage, (ii) outreach, (iii) intake, (iv) assessment of needs and conditions, (v) uptake capacity, and (v) benefit delivery to understand challenges in implementing Social Protection programs in remote areas. Summary Findings and Recommendations The following section presents the overall findings of this study, grouped into the six areas of research inquiry. A summary of priority recommendations to address the identified challenges are also summarized here, while the full list of recommendations is included in the body of this report. Challenges in ensuring beneficiary coverage in remote areas PKH Sembako BLT-DD BPJS Employment No specific data No specific data The coverage is Existence of collection on collection on program determined by the awareness and program coverage in coverage in remote amount of village strategy to expand remote areas. areas. funds. coverage in rural areas. Coverage data is not disaggregated between remote and non-remote areas A significant challenge arises from the lack of disaggregated data to distinguish program coverage in remote and non-remote areas. This is seen both in household surveys and in program administrative data1 and hinders a complete understanding of coverage issues in remote areas which affect the four Social Protection programs on which this assessment focuses. The absence of clear distinctions in data between these geographical categories poses a barrier to accurately identifying and addressing potential disparities in program coverage. At the district level, the local Social Affairs Offices (Dinsos) rely on the Integrated Social Welfare Database (Daftar Terpadu Kesejahteraan Sosial - DTKS), a social registry used to target the largest social assistance programs, including PKH, Program Sembako, and PIP. When queried about PKH and Program Sembako coverage in their jurisdiction, implementers noted that unfortunately, DTKS does not include a feature that would allow Dinsos to present data at the sub-district or village level. This hampers their ability to assess the coverage of PKH and Program Sembako, and specifically to classify locations as remote or non-remote. Similar challenges are encountered with the BLT-DD and with BPJS Employment programs. BPJS Employment offices acknowledged the need to broaden coverage in rural and remote areas, while noting that the data available to them does not support a distinction between remote and non-remote areas. There is also a lack of data on the number of individuals or households that are eligible to receive social assistance in these areas. Without this denominator, it is not possible to estimate the extent of under- coverage or exclusion errors (i.e., to compare the numbers of those currently receiving social assistance to the number of who are those eligible to receive it), which makes it hard to provide a clear description of coverage, and importantly, coverage gaps. 1 Household survey data, such as Susenas, does not categorize enumeration areas into ‘remote’ or ‘non-remote’ areas, but rather into urban/ rural. The March issue of Susenas is representative at the district/city level, while the September survey only at the provincial level. In contrast, administrative program data, such as the Integrated Social Welfare Database (DTKS) and Social Welfare Information System-Next Generation (SIKS-NG), do not include categorization variables like urban/rural. The absence or inconsistency in definitions related to ‘remote’ areas may be the reason for the difficulty in achieving such disaggregation. vi Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Priority recommendations to improve beneficiary coverage A critical first step to addressing coverage challenges in remote areas is to ensure the regular availability of up-to-date data on both eligible households and coverage in remote locations. It is therefore important to: Generally: • Ensure data disaggregation down to the village level in both household survey and program administrative data, distinguishing between remote and non-remote locations to support analysis of coverage gaps. The Government could use data from the Village Geographic Difficulty Index (Indeks Kesulitan Geografis Desa - IKG Desa) to distinguish remote and non-remote villages, then compare this information with program coverage in each village to analyze and address coverage gaps. Specifically in remote areas: • Conduct a targeted analysis of eligibility and beneficiary coverage. • Provide capacity building and support to subnational implementers, with a focus on improving knowledge on local socioeconomic constraints and remote-specific strategies for improving delivery and inclusion. Challenges in conducting outreach and communication in remote areas PKH Sembako BLT-DD BPJS Employment Less frequent visits Dinsos and TKSK Not all village Strategy to to remote locations. visits are limited due governments collaborate with to long distances to understand program LGs and Perisai remote areas. regulations, which agents to expand Limited information has implications the outreach channels e.g. for how this is online methods communicated to Limited awareness due to unreliable households. of BPJS employment connectivity. in remote areas Absence of an outreach and communication strategy for remote locations Communication and outreach about program procedures are generally lacking and scarcer in remote areas. The inaccessibility of locations significantly impedes program-related communications. Program Sembako depends on sub-district social welfare officers (Tenaga Kesejahteraan Sosial Kecamatan - TKSK) for village communications and struggles to establish effective outreach due to resource and budget constraints, particularly given the distance that sub-district officers must travel. Similarly, under the PKH program, visits to non-remote locations are much more frequent than visits to remote locations even though PKH relies on a large number of local level/program-specific facilitators. Although numerous brochures are available in various locations, many residents in remote areas remain uninformed about the availability of, and entitlements to, BPJS employment benefits. There is a need for targeted efforts to disseminate information and enhance awareness among residents in these hard-to-reach areas. Eligible non-beneficiaries expressed concerns that they were not sure about who is eligible to receive assistance, citing insufficient communication and information. Compared to those living near district centers, residents in remote areas face challenges with accessing information. There is also a lack of clarity about whom to approach, which is exacerbated by cultural norms which discourage inquiries; and difficulty in obtaining information online due to limited internet connectivity in these areas. The failure to establish outreach to remote areas is linked to the absence of a relevant implementation strategy. Without good data on program coverage in remote areas, program implementers do not perceive the need for specific outreach efforts in these locations. Program-level needs vary somewhat: while PKH and Program Sembako lack a dedicated outreach strategy for remote areas; BLT-DD may not necessarily Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges vii require one. Although BPJS Employment has an outreach strategy, it may not adequately consider the constraints posed by limited resources in remote areas. Recommendations to improve outreach and communications in remote areas Generally: • Develop and implement a robust communication strategy for program implementers and communities, focusing on a dedicated and tailored approach to effective information delivery. • Provide clear guidelines and training for stakeholders to address confusion regarding existing and new regulations and establish a centralized resource hub that can disseminate up-to-date information on procedures, ensuring that all stakeholders are well-informed about and aligned with the regulations, or are clear who to contact when they have questions. Specifically in remote areas: • Carry out communication needs assessments in local languages, to better understand the enabling environment and infrastructure for communications and outreach, as well as the methods households in remote areas prefer for receiving information. This will ensure that any subsequent outreach and communications will be tailored to the preferences and environment of the remote area. • Enhance stakeholder engagement to better understand the challenges unique to remote areas and to adapt outreach and communications to remote-specific cultural norms. This can be done through village discussions, stakeholder forums, and community meetings, and ensuring representation of key vulnerable groups such as indigenous people, persons with disabilities, women, etc. It is also important to enhance engagement with networked organizations such as religious and social groups with active operations in remote communities.2 • Leverage the communal aspect of payment days in remote areas as an opportunity to disseminate information on the program and to have on-site queries and assistance for beneficiaries. This can be a forum for beneficiaries to receive essential information about program design, implementation, grievance redress, eligibility criteria, etc. • Explore innovative solutions to disseminate information. This could include, where feasible, the use of WhatsApp chatbots to field frequently asked questions (FAQs) about Social Protection program design and implementation, which can also direct users to appropriate contacts for their specific questions and program details, assuming internet access is available, satellite radio etc. 2 For example, the Information and Consultation Services Clinic - Female Household Head Empowerment (Klinik Layanan Infor- masi dan Konsultasi - Pemberdayaan Perempuan Kepala Keluarga (KLIK PEKKA)) project, which was initiated to increase access to Social Protection and public services for women and marginalized communities in Indonesia, organized village- and district-level stakeholder forums to discuss strategies to increase access to Government service programs for marginalized communities. Village, sub-district, and district govern- ments are actively involved in the implementation of KLIK PEKKA. They participate in village discussions, stakeholder forums, and meetings to discuss community issues and find solutions. viii Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Challenges with Social Protection program intake in remote areas PKH Sembako BLT-DD BPJS Employment Limited on-demand options for program intake. Concerns about Insufficient subjectivity of intake resources to do decisions. intake processes in Remote villages lack adequate information about the rural and remote necessity of DTKS updates, as Dinsos prioritizes villages areas. near the district center. Limited internet connection in remote locations hampers access to the SIKS-NG to support intake processes Low-income families in remote areas lack sufficient information and on-demand options for intake Overall, social assistance intake in remote areas is constrained by a number of factors. These include: a supply-driven approach that relies on village governments and local program implementers to identify and enroll prospective beneficiaries; concerns about subjectivity in the decision-making process regarding who is eligible; and limited awareness among potentially eligible households about intake procedures. In remote areas, only a limited number of surveyed villages adhere to existing procedures for identifying and registering beneficiaries in the DTKS database. The discussion on program intake for PKH and Program Sembako has a focus on intake into DTKS, as this is the primary intake gateway for these programs, among other select social assistance programs.3 It is important to note, however, that intake into DTKS is not a guarantee for intake into each program specifically. In study villages, the lack of sufficient information about the need to update DTKS, coupled with Dinsos staff prioritizing villages located near the district center for the updating process, contributes to this limitation. The primary constraint in remote areas is the need for an internet connection to access the Social Welfare Information System-Next Generation (Sistem Informasi Kesejahteraan Sosial-Next Generation - SIKS-NG) application, which is required to update DTKS. This challenge is made more pronounced by the fact that data synchronization takes place on a predetermined schedule, which often does not align with the unreliable connectivity in remote villages. Dinsos faces significant limitations in verifying and validating updated data, especially in remote locations where this process is virtually nonexistent. Cek-Bansos – an app which allows users to see who in their locality is receiving social assistance, and either propose or challenge the inclusion of specific households – is intended to provide a means of verifying (and if necessary, correcting) errors in coverage. In remote areas, however, non-beneficiaries make very limited use of the app, primarily because they lack the relevant information on how the programs are intended to work, which reduces the potential contribution of this tool. The implementation of BLT-DD does not seem to be affected by specific issues related to remoteness. The challenges mentioned earlier appear to be encountered in all locations. However, concerns about subjectivity in intake decision-making were raised during the research study, which could be compounded given the fact that potential beneficiaries have comparatively more limited access to, and/or less understanding of, these decision-making processes in remote areas. BPJS Employment, however, suffers from a lack of resources to reach rural areas. The primary challenge in implementing BPJS Employment revolves around constrained resources for participant registration in rural areas, primarily attributed to geographical challenges as well as and a lack of awareness about the importance of BPJS enrollment among non-salaried and informal sector workers, who are prevalent in remote areas. 3 In addition to PKH and Program Sembako, the following programs also use DTKS for eligibility determination: PBI-JKN Subsidized Health Insur- ance; the PIP cash transfer for poor and vulnerable students (Program Indonesia Pintar), and BST Cash Transfer (Bantuan Sosial Tunai). Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges ix Recommendations to improve intake in remote areas Generally: • Build on recommendations for improving outreach and communications, to ensure these mechanisms include careful explanation of intake processes. • Establish on-demand approaches for intake for PKH, Sembako and BLT-DD, enabling households to apply for programs when in need, and through multiple channels including online, in-office, and on-request home visits. • Improve the dynamism and freshness of socioeconomic data used to support intake processes and data verification and validation for Social Protection programs, including through coordination between the Ministry of Social Affairs (MoSA) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) on joint regulations that would require local governments (including village governments in remote locations) to update DTKS regularly. Specifically in remote areas: • Enhance collaboration between the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology and local governments to tackle internet access challenges in areas with poor signal quality. This includes permitting village governments to update data offline and subsequently upload it in nearby areas with better signal quality. • Increase awareness of, and access to, the SIKS-NG application in more villages and facilitate the creation of village user accounts for updating data in the application in all locations. This entails providing training sessions on effective application utilization. • Engage with local leaders, community groups, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to disseminate information about ‘cek-bansos’. • Equip Dinsos and TKSK at sub-district level with portable connectivity tools. Enhance the involvement of Dinsos to provide support to villages in addressing this issue. Dinsos also need to be strengthened to verify data updates carried out by villages. • Build on the recommendations for improving outreach and communications to ensure improved understanding of BPJS enrollment among non-salaried and informal sector workers in remote areas. These efforts should also include village government and other program staff that regularly interact with non-salaried workers in remote areas. Challenges in conducting assessment of needs and conditions in remote areas PKH Sembako BLT-DD BPJS Employment Although a remote-area specific Lacks a dedicated assessment strategy, PKH AKSES has not for remote areas, relying on evolved since its introduction internal evaluations; however, it Insufficient resources to conduct verification and has resulted in key strategies to validation of updated data, esp. in remote areas expand rural coverage Assessment of needs and conditions not tailored to remote locations Assessment of needs and conditions in remote areas is hindered by a range of factors. These include homogeneous poverty conditions, a lack of remote-area specific variables to assess household conditions in remote contexts, and outdated DTKS data, limiting the ability to tailor program responses appropriate to household needs and conditions. Furthermore, the routine monitoring and evaluation implemented by program implementers for each of the four programs, which is geared towards improving implementation, concentrates primarily on general program procedures, neglecting specific conditions in remote areas. Recent program changes have been uniformly implemented across all locations, lacking tailored adjustments for remote areas. x Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges The PKH Akses program was set up to address these issues, however it has not evolved since its inception. While previous assessments led to the creation of PKH Akses, which addresses PKH delivery in these locations, there has been a notable absence of further reviews since 2018 to assess developments in the field. As a result, PKH Akses has not evolved since its introduction. BPJS, meanwhile, can call upon Perisai agents for outreach. Although BPJS has had no dedicated assessment of implementation and impact in remote areas, routine internal evaluations have proved valuable, generating key strategies to expand coverage in remote areas. These strategies involve collaboration with the staff of Perisai (an agent that assists BPJS with recruiting participants for employment insurance) and ensuring a more equitable distribution of resources to areas beyond Java. Recommendations to improve assesment of needs and conditions in remote areas Program implementers should recognize the need to pay greater attention to the issues facing remote areas and should seek to understand and address the challenges identified in this study. The findings from this study - on coverage, outreach, communication, intake procedures, uptake capacity, and benefit delivery - can be used to enhance overall support for remote locations. It is therefore important to: Generally: • Improve coordination among ministries overseeing databases to fulfil data interoperability requirements and to ensure capture and regular update of data necessary to assess household needs and conditions. Thoroughly consider the implications of data integration, aiming to minimize the exclusion of poor families and maximize the inclusion of new ones. Specifically in remote areas: • Adapt program criteria for assessment of needs and conditions to consider constraints. This may also require addressing diverse conditions across the country, as the poverty constraints in each location is heterogenous, while poverty conditions among households in each location may be largely homogeneous. • Carry-out a detailed process evaluation and program review of PKH Akses to assess its current effectiveness for responding to household needs and conditions. This assessment should also assess PKH Akses implementation across all delivery processes. The end result of this assessment should ideally be an update of PKH Akses that is better tailored to current needs and conditions in remote areas. • Increase program implementers’ awareness of mechanisms to effectively assess households’ needs and conditions, address implementation obstacles, and inform and train them on any adaptations to program procedures. Challenges in uptake capacity in remote areas PKH Sembako BLT-DD BPJS Employment PKH still faces Limited staff (Dinsos Limited staff to BPJS offices outside shortage of and TKSK) leads to monitor program Java have a staffing facilitators in infrequent visits to implementation level of only 70%. remote areas. remote areas. especially to remote areas. Limited Dinsos budget to monitor implementation, especially in remote areas. Uptake capacity in remote areas is constrained by limited human and financial resource constraints, and weak supporting infrastructure Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges xi Limited human resources pose a significant challenge to reaching remote areas, compounded by access constraints. In particular, there is a notable shortage of PKH facilitators in hard-to-reach areas, which means that some facilitators are forced to cover a substantial number of villages that are considerable distances apart. Program Sembako faces similar challenges: with limited external support, it relies solely on sub- district government staff (TKSK), leading to difficulties in overseeing implementation due to competing priorities. Dependence on TKSK at sub-district levels does not resolve the issue, as their numbers are also limited. This results in infrequent visits to villages in remote locations. Outside Java, staff numbers in BPJS Employment remain inadequate, at around 70 percent of the program’s estimated needs. Operational budget constraints further hinder implementation of activities in remote areas. With limited budget allocations for implementing and monitoring two national programs (PKH and Program Sembako), Dinsos staff make few visits to remote areas. This scarcity of resources also leads to infrequent verification and validation activities in remote locations to update DTKS. Despite PKH facilitators receiving supplementary incentives for PKH Akses areas, the amount falls short of covering the expenses associated with reaching village locations, especially in remote islands. Other issues associated with remoteness compound these challenges. These include inadequate infrastructure, limited mobility facilities, poor internet connectivity, and a lack of essential services. As a result, this situation collectively contributes to the overall difficulty in effectively reaching and serving remote communities. Recommendations to improve uptake capacity in remote areas Generally: • The overall findings on limited human resources on a program-by-program basis suggests that there may be opportunities for efficiency gains in human resource arrangements for Social Protection programming at a national level, with benefits to remote areas as well. As such, Government could consider streamlining household monitoring for poor households that receive MoSA-managed benefits such as PKH and Sembako, leveraging PKH facilitators and TKSK in an integrated approach that allows for a household-approach to supporting beneficiary families, versus a program-by- program approach for beneficiary monitoring. This is a very common social work approach, which allows household interventions to be better coordinated and linked to family development goals. Specifically in remote areas: • Efforts should be made to improve both the quantity and quality of human resources, reducing staff to beneficiary ratios to acceptable levels necessary for effective beneficiary monitoring. This applies to Dinsos, to oversee the implementation of PKH and Program Sembako, the Village Community Empowerment Office (Dinas Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Desa / PMD) managing BLT-DD, and the BPJS branch offices responsible for employment insurance. Dinsos should enhance the role of TKSK at the sub-district level to assist actively in the implementation and monitoring of programs; while BPJS should broaden its partnerships with local organizations, employing an approach similar to the use of Perisai agents, to help expand coverage in rural and remote areas. Additionally, Government could build on lessons learned from efforts to improve uptake capacity in other sectors, which have demonstrated success in deploying human resources in remote areas,4 and consider partnering with local representatives in remote villages to act as points of contact for the program in the absence of program staff. These individuals could be useful intermediaries between program staff when not physically present in villages. 4 For example, the Nusantara Sehat Program is a healthcare initiative that sends medical professionals to rural areas lacking adequate care. It involves hiring and sending healthcare professionals, setting up health facilities, and using mobile clinics for outreach services. The program also provides training to local healthcare workers, promotes health education, and collaborates with local governments and NGOs to ensure success- ful healthcare services. xii Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges • Increase program budgets and explore possible sustainable financing models for Social Protection program delivery in remote areas. These include increasing monitoring budgets, including for PKH Akses; and providing additional resources to staff to help improve their uptake capacity (e.g. more vehicles, and other transport mechanisms tailored to transport networks in each remote area; satellite connectivity options to ensure connectivity when in the field, etc.) • Prioritize advocacy to establish coordinated approaches across Government to improve constraints to effective update capacity, including to improve road networks, public transportation options, internet, and phone connectivity. Challenges with delivering benefits to beneficiaries in remote areas PKH Sembako BLT-DD BPJS Employment Information on payment schedules may not reach Limited monitoring Unfamiliarity remote beneficiaries due to limited communication in remote villages with online claim connectivity. raises concerns about procedures and poor Beneficiaries may face long queues during benefit potential fraud. internet access. delivery in village by post office. Beneficiaries in remote areas often have to travel considerable distances to collect cash payments or to file claims Benefit delivery and monitoring not tailored to remote locations Overall, this study has found that benefit delivery for Social Protection programs is not sufficiently tailored to the contexts of remote areas. PKH and Program Sembako do not differentiate between remote and non-remote areas in the way they deliver benefits. The requirement for beneficiaries to collect their benefits at the post office presents challenges, given that post offices are typically situated in the district center (with some in various sub-districts), far from remote villages. The communication of payment schedules from the post office through established channels can fail to reach beneficiaries, mainly due to limited connectivity in these regions. Long queues occur during post office delivery services in villages, especially when a single post office serves multiple villages in a single day. Distributing BLT-DD benefits to beneficiaries in remote areas is less challenging, but issues of distance also exist. BLT-DD is overseen directly by the village government with an allocated operational budget. Nevertheless, beneficiaries face long travel distances and time to collect payments due to the reliance on cash delivery at offices that are often located far from beneficiary households. Furthermore, the limited monitoring in remote villages raises concerns about the potential challenges in fund management by village governments. Poor connectivity and difficulty navigating online processes hamper access to BPJS Employment benefits. The online modality for the claim process should, in theory, simplify the process, as it eliminates the need for participants to visit the BPJS branch office, which is usually located in the district center or neighboring districts. However, in remote areas, this process is impeded by a lack of familiarity with online procedures, and limited internet connections. Recommendations to improve benefit delivery in remote areas Generally: • Conduct a comprehensive assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the delivery methods — banks and post offices — which are currently used in remote areas. Based on the assessment Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges xiii findings, develop a hybrid approach or implement improvements to enhance the accessibility of services for beneficiaries in these remote regions. • In collaboration with the post office, MoSA should explore the potential for offering more frequent village delivery services, aiming to alleviate long queues and minimize the need for beneficiaries to visit the district post office. • Provide social assistance beneficiaries with a choice of the payment delivery option that best suits their needs (a best practice in social assistance payment delivery). Specifically in remote areas: • Develop a hybrid approach or implement improvements to enhance the accessibility of benefit delivery for beneficiaries that promotes beneficiary choice. • Improve communication and information dissemination on payment schedules and locations to PKH and Sembako beneficiaries. This should optimally rely on multiple communications channels, less reliance on facilitator communications, utilization of technologies such as direct WhatsApp or text message broadcasts etc. • The Village Community Empowerment Office (Dinas Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Desa - Dinas PMD) should enhance its monitoring of remote villages to prevent the misappropriation of payments to beneficiaries. • Finally, BPJS should conduct an in-depth assessment of the demand for online claims in rural areas and formulate a strategy to facilitate this process. Linked to this, BPJS could consider simplifying or better tailoring the claims filing process in remote areas. Options that can be leveraged in addition to online filing (which is constrained by limited internet connectivity), could include expanding the role of Perisai agents to include claim facilitation, call centers to assist with filing claims; and mobile units that visit remote villages on set days to assist with filing claims and disseminating information, intake etc. These will reduce the need for lengthy commutes to offices to file claims. xiv Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Table of contents Acknowledgements iv Executive Summary v Table of Contents xv List of Tables, Figures, and Boxes xvi List of Abbreviations xvii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Research Objectives 2 1.3 Defining Remote Areas 3 1.4 Research Questions and Methodology 4 1.5 Analytical Framework 7 1.6 Research Limitations 8 2 Social Protection in Indonesia 9 2.1 The Social Protection System in Indonesia 9 2.2 Key Elements of Indonesia’s Social Protection System 12 2.3 Insights into the Four Selected Social Protection Programs 15 3 Findings: Challenges with Social Protection Implementation in Remote Areas 22 3.1 Overview of Study Locations 22 3.2 Coverage of Social Protection Programs 27 3.3 Outreach and Communication 30 3.4 Intake Procedures and Processes 33 3.5 Assessment of Household Needs and Conditions 41 3.6 Uptake Capacity 44 3.7 Benefit Delivery 46 4 Conclusion and Recommendations 50 4.1 Conclusion 50 4.2 Recommendations 52 Bibliography 58 Annex A 60 Annex B 63 Annex C 65 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges xv List of Tables, Figures, and Boxes Table 1 Main research questions 4 Table 2 Study locations 6 Table 3 Detailed list of respondents 7 Table 4 The difference between regular PKH and PKH Akses 15 Table 5 Modification in the implementation of Program Sembako 18 Table 6 Overview of study locations 24 Table 7 Snapshot of coverage of four SP programs in study locations: 28 Percentage of all households in the village receiving support. Table 8 Advantages and disadvantages of banks and post offices services in remote areas 47 Table 9 Summary of findings based on area of inquiry 51 Table 10 Emerging recommendation for remote areas 52 Figure 1 Overall research steps and methodology 5 Figure 2 Elements of Social Protection program inclusion in remote areas 7 Figure 3 Social Protection Programs and Ministries 11 Figure 4 National Coverage of Social Protection Programs, 2021-2023 11 Figure 5 Verification and validation processes for PKH beneficiaries up to 2021 16 Figure 6 Employment social security: a historical timeline 20 Figure 7 Map of Study Locations 22 Figure 8 Study locations 26 Figure 9 PKH and Program Sembako coverage in study locations 29 Box 1 Cases where families were excluded by the system 38 Box 2 Applying poverty criteria to update DTKS data 42 xvi Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges List of Abbreviations Bappenas National Development Planning Agency (Badan Perencana Pembangunan Nasional) BLT-DD Village Fund Direct Cash Assistance (Bantuan Langsung Tunai – Dana Desa) BPJS Social Security Administration Agency (Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial) BNPT Voucher-based food assistance program (Bantuan Pangan Non-Tunai) BPS Central Bureau of Statistics (Badan Pusat Statistik) BPU Non-wage workers (Bukan Penerima Upah) CCT Conditional Cash Transfer CMEA Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs Dapodik Basic Education Database (Data Pokok Pendidikan) Dinsos Local Social Affairs Office (Dinas Sosial) Dinas PMD Village Community Empowerment Office (Dinas Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Desa) DTKS Integrated Social Welfare Database (Data Terpadu Kesejahteran Sosial) FDS Family Development Sessions (for PKH) FGD Focus Group Discussion G2P Government-to-People GoI Government of Indonesia Himbara Association of State-Owned Banks (Himpunan Bank Milik Negara) IDI In-Depth Interview IDR Indonesian Rupiah IKG Geographic Difficulty Index (Indeks Kesulitan Geografis) JHT Old Age Insurance (Jaminan Hari Tua) JKK Work Accident Insurance (Jaminan Kecelakaan Kerja) JKM Death Insurance (Jaminan Kematian) JKN National Health Insurance (Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional) JKP Unemployment Insurance (Jaminan Kehilangan Pekerjaan) JP Pension scheme (Jaminan Pensiun) JPS Social Safety Net (Jaring Pengaman Sosial) KII Key Informant Interview KK Family Card (Kartu Keluarga) KKBC “Hard Work, Worry-Free” program (Kerja Keras Bebas Cemas) KKS Family Welfare Card (Kartu Keluarga Sejahtera) KPM Beneficiary Family (Keluarga Penerima Manfaat) KTP Identity Card (Kartu Tanda Penduduk) M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MoECRT Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology MoF Ministry of Finance MoH Ministry of Health MoHA Ministry of Home Affairs MoM Ministry of Manpower MoRA Ministry of Religious Affairs Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges xvii MoSA Ministry of Social Affairs MoV Ministry of Villages NGO Non-Governmental Organization NIK National Identity Number (Nomor Induk Kependudukan) NTT Nusa Tenggara Timur province OPK Special Market Operation (Operasi Pasar Khusus) OPM Oxford Policy Management P3KE Targeting the Acceleration of Extreme Poverty Elimination (Pensasaran Percepatan Penghapusan Kemiskinan Ekstrem) PBI-JKN Subsidized Health Insurance (Penerima Bantuan Iuran-Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional) PEN National Economic Recovery Plan (Pemulihan Ekonomi Nasional) PIP Smart Indonesia Program (Program Indonesia Pintar) PKH Family Hope Program (Program Keluarga Harapan) PKT Cash for Work (Padat Karya Tunai) PMD Village Community Empowerment (Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Desa) PMK Ministry of Finance Regulation (Peraturan Menteri Keuangan) PODES Village Potential Statistics Dataset (Potensi Desa) PPP Purchasing Power Parity PT Pos National Post Office – Indonesia PU Wage-Earners (Pekerja Penerima Upah – as members of social insurance programs) Pusdatin The Center for Social Welfare Data and Information (Pusat Data dan Informasi Kesejahteraan Sosial) PWDs Persons with Disabilities Raskin Rice for the Poor program (Beras Miskin) Regsosek Rice for the Poor program (Beras Miskin) RT/RW Sub-Hamlet/ neighborhood SA Social Assistance SBB Social Assistance Sembako Nine Basic Food (Sembilan Bahan Kebutuhan Pokok), previously known as Non-Cash Food Assistance (Bantuan Pangan Non-Tunai/ BPNT) SI Social Insurance SIAK Population and civil registration information system (Sistem Informasi Administrasi Kependudukan) SIKS-NG Social Welfare Information System-Next Generation (Sistem Informasi Kesejahteraan Sosial -Next Generation) SJSN National Social Protection System (Sistem Jaminan Sosial Nasional) SP Social Protection SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprise SUSENAS National Socio-Economic Survey (Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional) TKSK Sub-District Social Welfare Officers (Tenaga Kesejahteraan Sosial Kecamatan) TNP2K National Team for the Acceleration of Poverty Reduction (Tim Nasional Percepatan Pengurangan Kemiskinan) UDB Unified Data Base UMi Ultra Micro Financing (Pembiayaan Ultra Mikro) xviii Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 1 Introduction 1. 1.1 Background Over the past two decades, and particularly in the last ten years, Indonesia has made substantial progress in expanding and consolidating its Social Protection system. At the heart of this system lies social assistance (SA), which now encompasses a range of permanent programs primarily aimed at alleviating poverty. Government of Indonesia (GoI) expenditure on social assistance more than doubled in real terms between 2009 and 2018. It increased further in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, reaching IDR 161.03 trillion (US$10.14 billion) in 2022, driven by a significant expansion of key Social Protection programs such as the Family Hope Program (Program Keluarga Harapan – PKH), the Program Sembako food assistance, and the Smart Indonesia Program (Program Indonesia Pintar – PIP), a cash transfer for poor and vulnerable students.5 The increase in spending is reflected in the extended coverage of social assistance, such as in the growth in the number of PKH beneficiaries. Initially, in 2007, the program assisted only around 500,000 PKH families: this number surged to 10 million families by 2018. Alongside an increase in coverage, Indonesia has also succeeded in improving the delivery of its social assistance programs. A large-scale impact evaluation which compared the in-kind rice subsidy (Rastra) with the voucher-based food assistance program (Bantuan Pangan Non-Tunai – BPNT) found that the transition to the voucher-based program resulted in better targeting, in which target households in districts receiving the vouchers received 45 percent more assistance. Among poor households in the bottom 15 percent of the sample at baseline, this resulted in poverty falling by 20 percent.6 Indonesia has also made significant progress in rationalizing its social insurance system particularly in terms of the coverage of the health insurance scheme (Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional – JKN), which has gone from covering 130 million people to covering over 240 million in the last five years. These collective efforts have contributed to tangible results in poverty reduction in recent decades, with the poverty headcount falling from 19.1 percent in 2000 to 9.5 percent in 2022.7 However, the expansion of social insurance coverage for employment-related risks has been slower, primarily due to the lack of contribution subsidies for informal sector workers. To address this, the Social Security Administration Agency (Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial – BPJS) employs a range of strategies to uphold and enhance membership to address employment related risks. As an illustration, the implementation of the Perisai Program specifically aims to enroll non-wage earners and wage earners from small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as participants in employment insurance.8 Launched in 2018, the Perisai system numbered around 4,600 active agents by 2020, successfully enrolling approximately 530,000 members and accumulating contributions of roughly IDR 206 billion (US$12.96 million).9 5 World Bank (2020) Investing in People: Social Protection for Indonesia’s 2045 Vision. Jakarta, World Bank p. 25; Rakhmini Juwita (2023) “Analysis of Social Assistance and Provincial Unexpected Expenditure in Indonesia Before and After Covid-19 (Time Series Analysis: 2019 – 2021)” Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Studies, Volume 6 Issue 4 April 2023. 6 Banerjee, A., Hanna, R., Olken, B. A., Satriawan, E., and Sumarto, S. (2021). Food vs. food stamps: Evidence from an at-scale experiment in Indonesia (No. w28641). National Bureau of Economic Research. 7 World Bank (2020) Investing in People: Social Protection for Indonesia’s 2045 Vision. Jakarta, World Bank; OECD (2019), Social Protection System Review of Indonesia, OECD Development Pathways, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/788e9d71-en; TNP2K (2018) The Future Of The Social Protection System In Indonesia: Social Protection for all. Office of the Vice President of the Republic of Indonesia. 8 Perisai is an abbreviation for the ‘Penggerak Jaminan Sosial Indonesia’ (or driver of Indonesia social security), which serves as an agent assisting BPJS in recruiting participants for employment insurance (https://perisai.bpjs.go.id/) 9 Larasati, D., R.S. Milawati, and D. Nugroho (2022) Maintaining and Expanding Membership as an Effort to Ensure the Sustainability of the Social Insurance for Employment Program. Jakarta: TNP2K Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 1 Indonesia has also achieved significant progress in reducing poverty at the national level. However, rural areas – and particularly remote rural areas – continue to face challenges.10 According to data from the Statistics Indonesia (Badan Pusat Statistik – BPS), the poverty rate in 2023 was 12.2 percent in rural areas, compared to 7.29 percent in urban areas. Rates vary across the country and are significantly higher in outlying, highly rural provinces, reaching 23.8 percent in Nusa Tenggara Timur and 34.5 percent in Papua in 2023.11 As extreme poverty has fallen over time, it has become increasingly concentrated in remote rural areas at considerable distance from, and with poor connections to, the economically dynamic centers that drive Indonesia’s growth.12 Households residing in these parts of the country face substantial obstacles in accessing Social Protection programs, leading to their exclusion and limited participation. Various studies, including a recent report by the World Bank, have highlighted the consequences of this restricted access, such as disparities in non-monetary well-being indicators.13 These disparities encompass limited availability of educational facilities, healthcare services, and clean water. The rural population also exhibits lower average education attainment (only 5.3 years, compared to the national average of 8.1 years). Household sizes are also larger, averaging 4.5 members, in contrast to the national average of 3.8 members; and the dependency ratio is higher, with 63 percent more elderly individuals, 52 percent more young children, and 30 percent more people with disabilities compared to the national average14. Underdevelopment in Indonesia’s rural areas suggests an urgent need to investigate the challenges in accessing Social Protection programs in these areas, and to identify practical measures that can be applied to improve the access of rural communities to these key social assistance and insurance programs. This research report, commissioned by the World Bank and carried out by Oxford Policy Management (OPM), aims to identify some of the specific barriers to accessing Social Protection in remote areas and suggest how they might be addressed. 1.2 Research Objectives The main objective of this research was to “assess specific barriers experienced by poor and vulnerable households in Indonesia with accessing Social Protection benefits in remote areas and recommend specific policy and operational measures to improve access and mitigate the potential risks of further exacerbating exclusion for these households.” In assessing barriers to access, the research focused on investigating how impoverished individuals living in remote locations can access different Social Protection programs, exploring the challenges they face in the process. This exploration encompassed perspectives from program implementers, participants, and those who are eligible for programs, but do not receive benefits. To achieve this, the study assessed the delivery processes involved in priority programs, including outreach, intake, the assessment of needs and conditions, and uptake capacity (as elaborated in Section 1.4 below). It is worth noting that the study also sought to understand how beneficiaries, once they are enrolled, gain access to program benefits, and any barriers that may exist at this stage. The assessment focused on selected social assistance and social insurance programs, namely: • The Family Hope Program (PKH) conditional cash transfer, • Program Sembako food assistance15, 10 The picture of trends in poverty in Indonesia is influenced by the choice of poverty line. Using the World Bank international poverty lines, defined in 2011 PPP dollars, urban and rural poverty rates have now converged (using both the $1.90 pc per day extreme poverty line and the lower-middle income poverty line of $3.20). However, the national poverty line used by BPS results in rural poverty rates that are still consider- ably higher than those in urban areas. BPS (2023) Penghitungan dan Analisis Kemiskinan Makro Indonesia 2023. BPS Indonesia, Jakarta. 11 Extreme poverty is defined here in terms of the pre-2022 international extreme poverty line ($1.90 per capita per day, 2011 PPP). 12 World Bank (2020) No One Left Behind: Rural Poverty in Indonesia, The World Bank, Washington, DC 13 Ibid. 14 Henceforth, we will use the term Program Sembako. 15 2 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges • Village Fund Direct Cash Assistance (Bantuan Langsung Tunai-Dana Desa / BLT-DD); and • Employment insurance (BPJS Ketenagakerjaan). The selection of the above programs was driven by several considerations: • These are nationally recognized flagship Social Protection programs that are implemented across Indonesia. • They cover a variety of implementation arrangements, with the selected programs either being administered by the central government (PKH, Program Sembako, BPJS Employment) or managed by the local government (BLT-DD). • They encompass various categories of Social Protection programs, including social assistance (PKH, Program Sembako, and BLT-DD) and social insurance (BPJS Employment). In focusing on the implementation of Social Protection programs in remote areas, the study collected case study data from villages categorized as being in ‘remote areas’ in Western, Central, and Eastern Indonesia. The classification of remote areas is that used by PKH Akses, which is a set of provisions governing the modified implementation of the PKH program in hard-to-reach parts of Indonesia. The following section addresses the issue of how ‘remote areas’ are defined in Indonesia, and the limitations of data available to operationalize the concept in policy and programs. 1.3 Defining Remote Areas Definitions of rural areas and remote areas can vary based on context, with different countries or regions adopting distinct criteria. In this study, it is crucial to clearly outline the specific geographical scope under investigation to identify the challenges faced in remote areas regarding access to Social Protection programs. While there is no universally accepted definition of remoteness, governments and international organizations define remote areas according to policy or program needs. For instance, a program that is designed to provide essential services to remote areas delineates them in relation to distance or travel time from specific population centers. A common thread in these definitions is the absence of connectivity, whether due to geographic distance, terrain, or travel time.16 This study did not identify any official guidelines or regulations by the Indonesian Government specifically defining remote areas in Indonesia. However, the GoI uses the term “underdeveloped regions” (‘daerah tertinggal’), as used in Presidential Regulation No. 63/2020 concerning the designation of underdeveloped areas. In this regulation, underdeveloped areas are characterized as districts whose territory and society exhibit lower development compared to other regions on a national scale. This classification takes into account various factors, including the local economy, human resources, facilities and infrastructure, regional financial capacity, accessibility, and regional characteristics. As stipulated in this regulation, 62 districts, including 12 in Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT), eight in West Papua, and 22 in Papua, are officially designated as underdeveloped areas. The Government also employs the terms “urban and rural” (‘perkotaan dan perdesaan’), as specified by the Central Bureau of Statistics (Badan Pusat Statistik – BPS) in BPS Head Regulation No. 120/2020 concerning the classification of urban and rural villages. This classification is determined by criteria such as population density, the percentage of agricultural families, the presence of or access to urban facilities (including educational facilities, health services, markets/shops, hotel/hospitality services, and the percentage of families with telephone and electricity). Each criterion is assigned a score value: a village with a total score of nine is considered to be an urban area, while those scoring below nine are categorized as rural. As an institution providing a wide range of statistical data in Indonesia, BPS’s classification of urban and rural San Andres, E. A., Singh, S. K. and Kai, J. A. (2018). Development and Integration of Remote Areas in the APEC Region. Asia-Pacific Economic 16 Cooperation, Singapore. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 3 areas is commonly found in various datasets used to portray the situation or development of a region. In addition, BPS also calculates a Village Geographic Difficulty Index (Indeks Kesulitan Geografis Desa – IKG Desa). The index assigns a number that reflects the level of geographic difficulty of a village based on the variables correlated to the availability of basic services, infrastructure conditions, transportation, and communication. The higher the index number, the more difficult it is the village to access geographically.17 Among Indonesia’s Social Protection programs, only PKH has a dedicated category, known as PKH Akses, that is specifically designed for program implementation in challenging areas. To define challenging areas where adapted program implementation arrangements apply, PKH Akses employs criteria such as geographical condition, access to services, the presence of health and education facilities, human resources, and the availability of financial institutions for benefit delivery.18 The criteria employed for underdeveloped, rural, urban, and remote areas share similar factors, primarily related to geographical challenges and access or availability of necessary services. After consultation with the World Bank, inclusion as a PKH Akses location became one of the criteria this assessment used to select study sites (see also in Section 1.4 below). 1.4 Research Questions and Methodology Our research approach is rooted in a participatory methodology19 that emphasizes engagement with community stakeholders to understand social issues and the actions needed to result in social change within specific contexts. The research methodology is qualitative, underpinned by a people-centered approach20. This puts individuals and communities at the core, providing rich data to understand contextual nuances and lived experiences that shape behavior and decisions. Our primary focus was on identifying barriers that affect impoverished households in remote areas, taking into account the capacity of local governments to perform their responsibilities related to enabling and encouraging those who are eligible for Social Protection benefits and services to obtain them, and to deliver these benefits and services. We adopted an approach that emphasized repeated consultations with key stakeholders throughout the research process. This iterative approach included ongoing consultation and feedback, ensuring diverse perspectives are considered. Considering the study’s objectives, we have categorized research questions into six primary groups, as presented in Table 1 below. Please refer to Annex A for the full list of research questions and sub-questions. Table 1 Main research question Area of inquiry Main research question Coverage • To what extent is the program able to reach poor households in rural and remote areas? (to determine the actual • Who is being included and excluded from the program in these remote areas? coverage in the remote area) • What are current coverage rates, and trends over time? Outreach • How is the dissemination of information conducted in each program? (to ascertain the measures • Are there outreach efforts targeting vulnerable or marginalized populations in being taken to inform and remote areas? facilitate program access for population in remote areas) The IKG index is governed by Government Regulation No. 60/2014, and subsequently updated by Government Regulation No. 37/2023. The 17 score from this index is one weighted input into the composite score used to allocate Village Funds, however, it has not to our knowledge been used explicitly to distinguish remote from non-remote areas. These specific criteria are detailed in the program manual: Petunjuk Pelaksanaan Program Keluarga Harapan Akses. 2020. 18 Davis, B., and Pozarny, P. (2012). Qualitative research and analyses of the economic impacts of cash transfer programmes in sub-Saharan 19 Africa.  IDEO. (2015). The field guide to human-centered design: Design kit. 20 4 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Area of inquiry Main research question Intake • To what extent are the program eligibility criteria clear and understandable? (to understand the • How is enrollment and registration carried out? enrollment and registration • Are there any special efforts being made to reach the population in remote procedures and processes locations? applied in the program) Assessment of needs and • What methods does the program use to identify the needs of impoverished conditions families/individuals in remote areas? (to identify the process • How well do the program’s services align with identified needs? of assessing needs and • What are the conditions or requirements attached to accessing the program? determining requirements) Uptake capacity • What are the factors influencing the uptake of the program? (to understand the capability • Do program implementers possess sufficient resources to fulfill their of program implementers to responsibilities? execute the program) Benefit delivery • What methods does the program employ to deliver benefits to beneficiaries? (to understand how the • How do registered households / individuals access program benefits once they program provides benefits are enrolled? and how beneficiaries access them, taking into account any obstacles encountered) In order to address the aforementioned research questions, this study gathered data through desk-based research, consultations, and primary qualitative data collection, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. Figure 1 Overall research steps and methodology Desk based literature review + Consultation with Analysis national stakeholders and reporting + Primary qualitative data collection Desk-based research involved collecting relevant documentation including national policies and strategies on Social Protection, secondary data on the coverage of Social Protection programs, and previous research and studies concerning the implementation of Social Protection programs in Indonesia. Consultation with national stakeholders took place primarily through online and offline interviews involving representatives from the Ministry of Social Affairs (MoSA), including staff from the Directorate of Social Security (Direktorat Jaminan Sosial), the Center for Social Welfare Data and Information (Pusdatin), and the Secretariat of the Directorate General of Social Empowerment (Sekretariat Direktorat Jenderal Pemberdayaan Sosial / Ditjen Dayasos). We also interviewed representatives of the BPJS Employment Office. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 5 Primary data collection at the subnational level was conducted in three locations. The selection of research locations progressed in stages, commencing from the provincial level and culminating at the village level, taking into account various factors: Beginning with an assessment of provincial poverty rates in regions representing Western, Central, and Eastern Indonesia, the project identified Bengkulu for the western region, Central Sulawesi for the central region, and Maluku for the eastern region. Districts within these three provinces were chosen from those categorized as ‘challenging areas’ under PKH Akses21, and those with poverty rates that were high for the province. Applying these criteria, we selected Bengkulu Utara, Donggala, and Seram Bagian Barat (SBB). Donggala and SBB are part of the list of disadvantaged regions, further supporting the selection of these locations due to their accessibility challenges.22 Finally, a sub-district was chosen within each sample district, based on poverty rate and logistical feasibility. Two villages within each sub-district were selected based on consultations with district stakeholders. The table below lists the study locations and relevant poverty data. Table 2 Study locations Province District Sub- Region Poverty Poverty Village Name Name districts rate rate Western Bengkulu 14.62% Bengkulu Utara 11.45% Pinang Raya • Air Sebayur • Bukit Harapan Central Central 12.33% Donggala 16.30% Balaesang • Kamonji Sulawesi Tanjung • Ketong Eastern Maluku 15.97% Seram Bagian 22.25% Huamual • Allang Saude Barat (SBB) Belakang • Waesala Data collection in the three locations took place from September 24th to October 8th, 2023. In each location, key informant interviews (KIIs), in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) were held at district, sub-district, and village levels. Participants were chosen using a mix of purposeful and opportunistic sampling methods. This included identifying individuals with prior knowledge and experience of Social Protection program implementation and assessing their geographical accessibility to facilitate fieldwork logistics. The research design also employed snowball sampling, selecting additional respondents based on referrals from those initially identified. The process of identifying respondents began with discussions with village heads, who we asked to help in locating both Social Protection program beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries within the village. Based on this information, we worked with village governments to arrange FGDs, which were held in the village hall or other accessible public building and involved both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. In-depth interviews were conducted during visits to each respondent’s dwelling. In total, 185 individuals (59 male and 126 female) participated in qualitative data collection, as shown in the Table 3. 21 This categorization is based on the Directorate General of Social Protection and Security Regulation No. 01/3/OT.01/02/2021 on PKH Akses locations. According to Presidential Regulation No. 63/2020, these two regions are classified as underdeveloped areas. 22 6 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Table 3 Summary of research respondents Key informant interviews Focus group discussion In-depth interviews Districts Total respondents Total participants Total respondents conducted Male Female conducted Male Female conducted Male Female Bengkulu 5 KIIs with 13 6 FGDs with 44 18 IDIs with 20 12 1 13 31 7 13 Utara respondents participants respondents 6 KIIs with 14 4 FGDs with 32 12 IDIs with 13 Donggala 12 2 0 32 3 10 respondents participants respondents Seram 6 KIIs with 12 4 FGDs with 23 12 IDIs with 14 9 3 0 23 3 11 Bagian Barat respondents participants respondents 17 KIIs with 39 14 FGDs with 42 IDIs with 47 Total 33 6 13 86 13 34 respondents 99 participants respondents Note: A total of 66 beneficiaries and 80 non-beneficiaries were involved in FGDs and IDIs. Only two participants took part in both the FGDs and IDIs: one in Bengkulu Utara and the other in Donggala. 1.5 Analytical Framework In analyzing the data, the research focused on the interactions between the six research areas, aligned to the delivery chain followed by most Social Protection programs. These include (i) coverage, (ii) outreach, (iii) intake, (iv) assessment of needs and conditions, (v) uptake capacity, and (v) benefit delivery (Figure 2 below). The capacity of implementers plays a crucial role in shaping program operations and outcomes. Functional steps in program implementation include outreach and communication, the assessment of needs and conditions, managing intake, and benefit delivery. As the first links in the delivery chain, accurate and effective outreach and communication are key, as they pave the way for a smooth intake process, including the registration and enrollment of program participants. Each stage and aspect of program execution is affected in some way by the challenges that are specific to remote areas. As such, each stage must take into account the context of remoteness and adapt accordingly to ensure that program coverage, targeting accuracy and benefit delivery reflects the intended objectives of the program. Figure 2 Elements of Social Protection program inclusion in remote areas Uptake Capacity Regular updating Assessment of needs and Outreach and process condition Challenges: limited updates, Challenges: limited needs communication assessment for remote unclear procedures, access to data system, budget. areas Challenges: distance, communication Data on potential Eligibility Intake – registration and networks, beneficiaries criteria enrolment Challenges: unclear budget. procedures, access to data system, budget. Benefit Challenges: distance, delivery financial service availability. Coverage Source: OPM analysis Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 7 Numerous studies have highlighted the need to give special attention to addressing spatial inequalities in Social Protection coverage. In most countries, under-coverage of national programs is found to be higher in remote rural areas, where poor and vulnerable populations face more pronounced legal, administrative, and financial hurdles to achieving access to Social Protection, including high administrative and transaction costs, inadequate banking facilities and a lack of awareness of the programs. Principles guiding program design, including eligibility criteria, the timing and level of benefits, institutional responsibilities, and funding, should be explicitly outlined to establish inclusive, accountable, and predictable schemes.23 Based on both Indonesian and international experience, there are thus likely to be specific challenges with regard to the implementation of Social Protection programs in Indonesia. This study examines nuances and variations in implementation across the three study locations and seeks to identify the factors that that are most important in shaping delivery. 1.6 Research Limitations A number of challenges and limitations emerged during the research process. This qualitative study was conducted on a limited budget, within a constrained timeframe, and with a relatively small sample size. As such, it is crucial to exercise caution when drawing generalizable conclusions, as the findings may not be broadly applicable across Indonesia. Nevertheless, the three chosen locations in this study are expected to provide insights into similar situations found in other areas of the country with similar characteristics. The timeframe for completion of this assessment also meant the team could not afford to wait for district staff to furnish the required data when they indicated a need for additional time to collect the necessary information. Consequently, the study’s insights into access to Social Protection programs in Indonesia, is limited to the information received. Importantly, through interviews conducted at both the national and subnational levels, it became apparent that there are ongoing adjustments and strategic changes in the implementation of Social Protection programs in Indonesia. Despite several recent developments that have brought about positive changes, certain elements are still in a state of transition, and there is a lack of support from official regulations for consistent implementation in all locations. Consequently, this study cannot definitively assert whether these changes or planned adjustments will be applied or persist in the coming years, nor their impact. Finally, there were some challenges with assessing whether program coverage in remote areas is genuinely lower when compared to non-remote regions. Currently, the indicator for low coverage in remote areas relies on the inference drawn from comparing poverty rates with other regions, rather than directly considering the actual recipient count. Unfortunately, there is a notable absence of data regarding the total number of beneficiaries in these remote areas. Ideally, this data should be compiled routinely. As a result, gathering data pertaining to this aspect has proved to be particularly challenging. Kind, M., and Lee, Y.F. (2021) Social Protection in Rural Areas: Achieving Universal Access for All. Policy Brief No 107. UN DESA. 23 8 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 2 Social Protection in Indonesia 2 This section focuses on the general implementation arrangements of the key Social Protection programs, addressing design, implementation procedures, and data and information systems. There is a brief discussion of the overall features of program implementation in remote areas, drawing on relevant literature and interviews with national stakeholders. 2.1 The Social Protection System in Indonesia The 1945 Indonesian Constitution emphasizes the Government’s commitment to citizens’ welfare, which gained prominence during the Asian financial crisis in 1998. In response to the crisis, the Government implemented the Social Safety Net (Jaring Pengaman Sosial - JPS), incorporating subsidized rice (Special Market Operation/ Operasi Pasar Khusus - OPK), school support, health (JPS-health), revolving loans/credit (Regional Empowerment in Overcoming the Impact of the Economic Crisis (Pemberdayaan Daerah Dalam Mengatasi Dampak Krisis Ekonomi - PDM-DKE)), and the Sub-District Development Program (Program Pemberdayaan Kecamatan - PPK). Following the crisis, Law No 40/2004 was enacted, establishing the National Social Security System (SJSN), encompassing social insurance and labor programs. This legislation provided legal guidelines for social security initiatives, including health insurance, pensions, work injury benefits, and disability support, with a focus on social justice, solidarity, and equity. Law No. 11/2009 expanded Social Protection to include social assistance, empowerment, and rehabilitation, aiming to enhance the well-being and quality of life, and ultimately to eradicate poverty. Drawing lessons from the crisis and guided by more detailed laws, Indonesia underwent a shift towards a comprehensive social assistance (SA) approach. This transformation included the introduction of the PKH conditional cash transfer in 2007 and the establishment of a social registry in 2011 (then called the Unified Database (Basis Data Terpadu - UDB), with information on impoverished individuals, which acted as the foundation for various social assistance programs. The OPK implemented during the crisis was subsequently enhanced and evolved into a rice subsidy for the poor, Raskin, in 2002, further transforming into voucher-based food assistance, Program Sembako, in 2017. Social insurance coverage was initially confined to civil servants and the formal sector, with the Government’s initiation of social insurance in the late 1960s preceding the financial crisis. Decentralization in 2001 prompted local governments to implement health insurance through a Regional Health Safety Net (Jaminan Kesehatan Daerah - Jamkesda). The establishment of the BPJS institution in 2011 significantly contributed to the further implementation of the SJSN, with the initiation of universal health insurance in 2014 and employment insurance in 2015.24 In 2020, Social Protection was a critical element in the Government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This encompassed both a major expansion of existing programs (PKH and Program Sembako) and the introduction of a number of new short-term programs of cash and food transfers, subsidies, and vouchers (some targeted as supplementary benefits to those already receiving social assistance, and some explicitly targeted to households who were not enrolled in PKH or Program Sembako). Social Protection was the largest component of the National Economic Recovery Plan (Pemulihan Ekonomi Nasional - PEN), with a budget that reached IDR 203.9 trillion (US$12.84 billion) by November 2020. The plan was renewed in 2021.25 In summary, the evolution of Indonesia’s Social Protection system has led to significant improvements in coverage and impacts on poverty and vulnerability. Over time, the Government has extended coverage, 24 OECD (2019), Social Protection System Review of Indonesia, OECD Development Pathways, OECD Publishing, Paris; World Bank (2020) Invest- ing in People: Social Protection for Indonesia’s 2045 Vision. Jakarta, World Bank Hebbar, M., Satriana, S. and Ammoun, J. (2021) Using Social Protection to Respond to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia’, DAI Global UK Ltd, 25 United Kingdom pp. 10-13. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 9 bolstered social insurance, and enhanced coordination to promote social well-being. However, challenges persist, including fiscal constraints, and issues with beneficiary targeting, administrative capacity, and inter-agency coordination. At present, the National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas) advocates using a life cycle approach to deliver Social Protection in Indonesia.26 This comprehensive strategy acknowledges that individuals encounter diverse risks and vulnerabilities throughout their life, from infancy through to old age. Bappenas also holds the view that the Government should factor in Indonesia’s vulnerability to covariate risk, which reflects the country’s susceptibility to disasters and the effects of climate change. In line with international convention, the National Team for the Acceleration of Poverty Reduction (Tim Nasional Percepatan Penanggulangan Kemiskinan TNP2K),27 categorizes the elements of the Social Protection system in Indonesia into three broad groups. These consist of: 1. Social assistance or non-contributory programs. These are aimed at supporting the most economically disadvantaged households in the country. These programs are designed to alleviate immediate hardship, improve well-being, and enhance the socio-economic conditions of recipients. This category encompasses three primary programs: the PKH conditional cash transfer program, Program Sembako food assistance, and PIP cash transfers for underprivileged students. These three programs benefit up to 20 million families. Social assistance also includes the BLT-DD cash transfer program, administered by the Ministry of Villages (MoV). The MoV’s managed cash-for-work program known as “Padat Karya Tunai” (PKT) also forms part of the social assistance landscape, but it not a focus of this study. 2. Social insurance or contributory schemes. These comprise two primary groups: health insurance and employment insurance. The management of these two types of insurance is carried out by BPJS with support from the Ministry of Health (MoH) and the Ministry of Manpower (MoM) on the technical aspects of insurance implementation. In this context, the Government provides subsidies for the premium contributions of economically disadvantaged individuals, known as subsidized health insurance (PBI-JKN). 3. Access to livelihoods. This enables individuals and households to secure sustainable sources of income and improve their economic well-being. This category of Social Protection involves initiatives, programs, and policies that empower people to engage in productive activities, gain employment, start businesses, or enhance their skills, ultimately helping them achieve financial independence and resilience in the face of economic vulnerabilities. This category encompasses several programs, including the pre-employment card (Kartu Prakerja)28 and Community Business Credit (Kredit Usaha Rakyat/KUR)29 overseen by the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs (CMEA); and Ultra Micro Financing (UMi)30 by the Ministry of Finance (MoF). Additionally, the Pahlawan Ekonomi Nusantara (PENA)31 program is managed by the Ministry of Social Affairs (MoSA). Bappenas (2014) Perlindungan Sosial di Indonesia: tantangan dan arah ke depan. Bappenas, Jakarta. 26 27 TNP2K was founded to foster coordination among ministries and agencies, with the objective of improving the execution of poverty reduction initiatives. Its establishment was authorized by Presidential Regulation Number 15 of 2010. TNP2K’s specific mandate includes creating a data- base containing the names and addresses of poor households and enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of poverty alleviation programmes in terms of reaching the intended beneficiaries. Kartu Prakerja (pre-employment card), initiated in 2020 as a governmental response to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, is a 28 program designed to boost the skills of job seekers, individuals facing layoffs, and those seeking skill enhancement. 29 KUR is a government-subsidized financing program featuring favorable interest rates. Administered by the Bank/Non-Bank Financial Institution, the funds are allocated for both working capital and investment needs. Government support is manifested through interest subsidies, and a structured guarantee system ensures that the primary collateral for KUR revolves around the financed business or entity. 30 Ultra Micro Financing (UMi) fosters business independence, with a specific focus on grassroots-level micro-businesses that are not currently eligible for support through the KUR program. The program offers a maximum financing facility of IDR 10 million (US$629.64) per customer and is distributed through Non-Bank Financial Institutions. The PENA program is a recent initiative replacing MoSA’s previous economic empowerment initiative, Prokus, targeted to social assistance 31 beneficiaries. It specifically targets individuals in their productive age (20-40 years) who are currently receiving social assistance. The program’s objective is to facilitate a voluntary transition towards independence from social assistance by providing business strengthening support. 10 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Figure 3 below provides a high-level overview of the major Social Protection programs in Indonesia, clustered according to the typology described above. Section 2.2 below provides more information on these key programs. Figure 3 Social Protection Programs and Ministries Indonesia’s Social Protection System Social Assistance / Access to Social Insurance / Contributory Non-contributory Livelihoods BPJS BPJS MoSA MoEC MoRA MoV MoSA MoF CMEA MoH MoM Health Employment PKH PIP BLT-DD Kartu National Employment PENA UMi JKN-Mandiri Prakerja Insurance Micro- Sembako PKT finance program PBI - JKN (KUR) Source: Adapted from TNP2K presentation (2023) Note: This diagram is not intended as a comprehensive inventory of all the programs and institutions in Indonesia (including delivery agencies), but it does offer a broad outline of the key ministries and Social Protection instruments. As an initial overview of program coverage, the table below presents national-level beneficiary figures for these programs. A detailed breakdown of the data at the subnational level is provided in Section 3. Figure 4 National Coverage of Social Protection Programs, 2021-2023 14.7 2021 2022 2023 13.9 12.9 11.4 10.8 9.7 9.2 7.4 7.4 6.8 7.1 7.0 6.5 5.7 5.8 5.4 5.1 ---- BPJS Employment BPJS Employment BPJS Employment PKH Sembako BLT-DD JKK JKM JHT millions families millions of individuals Note: The coverage data for all programs are derived from SUSENAS March 2021, 2022, and 2023. The data units for PKH, Program Sembako and BLT-DD are beneficiary families, whereas JKK, JKM, and JHT are individuals. While this data provides insights into the national-level coverage of beneficiaries in relevant programs, it is important to interpret it with care. Derived from a household sample survey, these estimates come with margins of error and may not align with actual coverage as recorded in program administrative data. The administrative data reports that Program Sembako reached 17,829,352 million beneficiaries in June 2023 (about 96 percent of target).32 Direktorat Pemberdayaan Kelompok Rentan, Direktorat Jenderal Pemberdayaan Sosial, Kementerian Sosial (August 23, 2023), Kebijakan dan 32 Pengendalian Program Sembako Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 11 2.2 Key Elements of Indonesia’s Social Protection System Rather than seek to describe all the components and aspects of the national Social Protection system, the focus in this section is on the two key elements that are most pertinent to this study: firstly, the procedure for identifying and determining program beneficiaries and, secondly, the processes involved in distribution of benefits – together with a brief introductory discussion of policies for implementing programs in remote areas. 2.2.1 Determining Program Beneficiaries In line with Law No. 13 of 2011, the Government tackles poverty through targeted policies, utilizing data based on poverty criteria to identify those in need. In early 2012, the Government developed a database, originally named the Unified Data Base (UDB) (Basis Data Terpadu - BDT) managed by TNP2K, containing information about poor families in Indonesia, organized by name and by address (BNBA). The preparation of the UDB commenced in 2011 with poverty mapping, utilizing data from the 2010 Population Census, 2010 National Socio-Economic Survey (Susenas), and Village Potential Statistics dataset (PODES). Poverty mapping involved gathering information on vulnerable households through consultations during data collection and direct field observations, drawing insights from other impoverished households. The process concluded by establishing a definitive list of eligible poor households using a proxy means test (PMT), predicting household expenditure through a regression model. This approach (which is a widely adopted approach in many countries) resulted in the UDB, containing the names and addresses of households representing the poorest 40 percent of Indonesia’s population, along with per capita expenditure predictions.33 This database underwent multiple enhancements before being transferred to MoSA for management in 2017, after which it was renamed the Integrated Social Welfare Database (Data Terpadu Kesejahteran Sosial - DTKS). DTKS serves as a social registry for identifying and targeting potential beneficiaries for various Social Protection programs in Indonesia, including PKH, Program Sembako, PIP, and PBI-JKN. The supervision of DTKS within MoSA is the responsibility of the Center for Social Welfare Data and Information (Pusdatin) through an application known as SIKS-NG (Social Welfare Information System-Next Generation). In 2021, MoSA mandated that in order to qualify for DTKS registration, individuals within disadvantaged families must possess a National Identity Number (Number Induk Kependudukan or NIK) issued by the Directorate General of Population and Civil Registration within the Ministry of Home Affairs (DG Dukcapil, MoHA). This requirement presents a significant challenge for some families whose NIKs do not align with Dukcapil data.34 Approximately 5.8 million PBI JKN beneficiaries have been excluded from DTKS due to NIK disparities with Dukcapil records.35 While these individuals have the opportunity to obtain a valid NIK from a local district Dukcapil office (Disdukcapil) to facilitate re-entry into DTKS and subsequently into Social Protection programs, this process prolongs re-registration in social assistance and security programs, temporarily depriving intended beneficiaries of benefits. Currently, DTKS updates involve community engagement to improve the accuracy of data. MoSA Regulation No. 3 of 2021 specifies that DTKS can be updated through the following methods: • Updating data in village meetings (Musyawarah Desa or Musdes) which involve village heads, neighborhood unit heads, and hamlet heads, along with Village Representative Councils (Badan Perwakilan Desa/BPD) members and sub-district representatives. Outcomes are documented in TNP2K (2013) Pembangunan Basis Data Terpadu Untuk Mendukung Program Perlindungan Sosial. Jakarta, TNP2K. 33 34 The Indonesian Government has actively enhanced population data management since the late 2000s, followed by the implementation of regulations concerning unique ID numbers in 2013. However, completing this ongoing improvement process requires time. Some district offices still face challenges related to resources and information management. Until the middle of the last decade, the system encountered difficulties in promptly generating a unique number, especially in districts with limited connectivity. Consequently, numerous ID numbers remain unregis- tered or end up as duplicates. 35 TNP2K (2022), Hasil Kajian Cakupan Penerima Manfaat pada Anak Usia Balita di 3 Kabupaten di Indonesia; Komisi IX Soroti Akurasi Pengelo- laan Data PBI-JKN BPJS Kesehatan, 24-11-2021. 12 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges the Musdes Minutes, then input into the SIKS-NG app and sent to the regent / mayor through the district level social affairs office (Dinsos). Dinsos is responsible for verifying and validating this updated data. • Individuals can register using either the SIKS-NG or the Cek Bansos applications.36 The SIKS-NG application is exclusively accessible to Dinsos and village governments, while the Cek Bansos application lets anyone verify if their family receives national social assistance, dispute the inclusion of individuals they perceive are financially capable, and suggest others who meet eligibility criteria. Dinsos verifies and validates registrations and objections made through the Cek Bansos app. • A direct proposal from MoSA to include specific households. This falls outside the scope of this study and is not discussed in this report. Verified and validated data are then channeled to the DTKS through the online SIKS-NG system, accompanied by a Regional Head’s endorsement. However, this data updating mechanism has inherent constraints. Proposals and contentions made via the Cek Bansos application may be subjective, despite the use of specific criteria. This emphasizes the need for meticulous verification and validation procedures. The challenge lies in establishing the frequency with which these processes need to be repeated in order to ensure the precision and timeliness of the data. An emerging concern relates to the shift away from the use of social welfare rankings for beneficiary selection through DTKS. To address the socioeconomic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the GoI introduced an unconditional cash transfer for families not included in DTKS, which was funded by Village Funds (Dana Desa). Eligible families were selected through village consultations; and village officials recorded the names and addresses of beneficiaries, which were then included in DTKS, without collection of their socioeconomic data. Later in 2021, there was also a broader shift in policy direction, allowing open registration in DTKS by the public, either by registration from a website for those living in Jakarta (called DTKS Jakarta) or by contacting local officials, for those living outside Jakarta. The information collected however no longer includes the socioeconomic variables necessary for social welfare ranking.37 There have been subsequent GoI efforts to facilitate socioeconomic ranking and assessment. Recently, the Coordinating Ministry for Human Development and Culture (Kemenko PMK) began utilizing a separate poverty database, called P3KE, to support the Government’s strategy of eliminating extreme poverty.38 P3KE applies a social welfare ranking down to the sub-district level.39 Additionally, Bappenas, funded by different resources, piloted and later scaled-up a national socioeconomic registration (Registrasi Sosial Ekonomi: Regsosek) to support the Government’s plan to build a population social registry including data on household social conditions and welfare.40 Nationwide data collection was conducted in November 2022 by the Central Bureau of Statistics (Badan Pusat Statistik: BPS), with Regsosek now including data on close to 78.32 million families nationwide.41 Various regulations currently in circulation offer somewhat inconsistent guidance on the identification and selection of BLT-DD beneficiaries and the extension of this coverage. Initially, a regulation mandated that villages should gather data about poor individuals and households affected by COVID-19, particularly those who were not receiving PKH and Program Sembako. However, a more recent regulation stipulates that villages should utilize data from the extreme poverty initiative, or P3KE (see also Section 2.3.3 for more 36 The introduction of the Cek Bansos (or social assistance check) application aims to enhance the precision of distributing social assistance to eli- gible recipients. This digital application fosters community engagement through its “suggestion” and “rebuttal” features, allowing the public to participate actively. Access is granted through a verified and activated user ID provided by the Ministry of Social Affairs. Accessible from: https:// cekbansos.kemensos.go.id/ Hadiwidjaja, Gracia; Williams, Asha; and Giannozzi, Sara. 2022. Improving Data Quality for an Effective Social Registry in Indonesia. The World 37 Bank. https://p3ke.kemenkopmk.go.id/beranda 38 https://p3ke.kemenkopmk.go.id/sebaran 39 https://sepakat.bappenas.go.id/regsosek-dashboard/ 40 https://sepakat.bappenas.go.id/regsosek-dashboard/. Data as of May 1, 2024. 41 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 13 detail on this). A study carried out by KOMPAK42 revealed instances where villages subsequently utilized DTKS data, despite encountering challenges in working with outdated information within the database.43 The study’s findings on the process of determining beneficiaries will be elaborated in Section 3. During the COVID-19 pandemic, BPJS Employment was also used to direct time-bound social assistance, using an additional, different set of criteria, this time based on salary income. While under normal circumstances this employment insurance scheme registers and serves formal sector workers who tend not to be the poorest, between 2020 and 2022 new subsidies were introduced with income-based criteria. Participants with a monthly salary below IDR 3.5 million (US$220) and registered by the BPJS as active participants received a one-time grant of IDR 600,000 (US$38) before the Eid holiday. Subsidies also exist at the subnational level, discussed in Section 3. 2.2.2 Delivering Benefits to Beneficiaries Indonesia’s Social Protection programs have evolved towards a Government-to-People (G2P) 2.0 model, transitioning from traditional in-person distribution to more streamlined bank account payments, leading to enhanced efficiency and transparency. The shift from in-kind assistance to cash transfers was introduced in large part to promote financial inclusion and to combat corruption. The country previously successfully extended banking services to ten million households participating in the PKH program, with a presidential regulation issued in 2016 paving the way for the integration of social assistance through a unified payment platform, facilitated by collaboration with five state-owned banks (Himpunan Bank Milik Negara - Himbara).44 Non-cash transfers were introduced in PKH with the issuance of Family Welfare Cards (Kartu Keluarga Sejahtera - KKS), which gradually supplanted Social Protection Cards (Kartu Perlindungan Sosial / KPS).45 Following PKH, various programs, including PIP and Program Sembako, shifted to delivering their benefits through the KKS. However, the process of payment digitization remains incomplete, and providing and disbursing payments to individuals residing in remote and underserved regions still poses operational challenges. In many areas of Papua and West Papua provinces, payments to beneficiaries could not be facilitated through bank accounts due to limited banking infrastructure and difficulties in opening accounts for families in remote locations. Instead, funds were distributed in cash through post offices. As described in Section 2.3 below, the utilization of the post office for both PKH and Program Sembako payments is expanding, particularly for new beneficiaries who were registered in 2023. In addition to constraints posed by limited banking infrastructure, the use of G2P payments is complicated by difficulties faced in the distribution of the family welfare debit cards. Based on findings from the Program Sembako monitoring team in 2018, a range of challenges emerged during the distribution of these cards, the most important of which, was identifying beneficiaries when addresses were unclear or changed. Certain beneficiaries might also be unable to participate in the scheduled meetings organized by banks to receive their debit cards at designated times and locations.46 The transfer of BLT-DD assistance from the central government to village governments occurs through a non-cash method into village government accounts, as specified in Permendes No. 6/2020. However, there is no clearly defined procedure for transferring these funds from the village government account to the beneficiaries. Interviews conducted with TNP2K staff suggest that the majority of fund distributions The KOMPAK program is a governance facility financed by the Australian Government to assist the Indonesian Government in 42 promoting good governance at village level. Yon, Kwan Men., Darmawan, Leni, et.al., (2022) Governance and Distribution of Village Funds Cash Assistance (BLT-DD). Jakarta, 43 KOMPAK. World Bank. (2020). Investing in People: Social Protection for Indonesia’s 2045 Vision. Jakarta, World Bank 44 45 KPS, issued by the Government since 2013 through the Ministry of Social Affairs, served as an integral component of Social Pro- tection expansion programs. It functioned as a tool for economically disadvantaged households to access various Social Protection programs. Slide presentation from Tim Pengendali Pelaksanaan Penyaluran BPNT under the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs 46 (CMEA). 14 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges to beneficiaries were carried out in cash. In certain locations, however, it is reported that villages have the option to transfer funds to the beneficiaries’ bank accounts, if they already possess one.47 In order to receive benefits from JKK, JKM and JHT (the social insurance schemes for work-related accidents, death, and old age, respectively), a participant must file a claim (either online through a BPJS- provided application or offline at a BPJS branch office) by attaching the necessary documents (e.g., a death certificate for a JKM claim). Upon meeting all the stipulated requirements, compensation will be disbursed to the designated bank account.48 2.2.3 Policy Considerations in Remote Areas PKH is the only program to include unique provisions for areas designated as hard-to-reach regions. Known as PKH Akses, these customized arrangements have been implemented by MoSA since 2017. Program Sembako does not have a comparable location-based dedicated policy, whereas BPJS has identified the expansion of employment insurance coverage to rural areas and non-wage earners as one of its targets. Meanwhile, the allocation of BLT-DD in each village is affected by the Village Fund’s allocation formula set by the Ministry of Finance (MoF). This formula considers the village’s IKG, incorporating factors such as the level of geographical difficulty, to determine the allocation amount. PKH Akses locations are identified using four criteria: a) coastal regions and small islands, b) remote or disadvantaged areas, c) border regions between countries, and/or d) areas that are recommended by the district, often originating from the relevant Dinsos. Processes that PKH Akses uses to identify eligible beneficiaries, pay transfers, support beneficiaries and track implementation vary slightly from the conventional PKH approach, as explained below. Table 4 The difference between regular PKH and PKH Akses Activity PKH Regular PKH Akses Identify source of data for eligible household DTKS DTKS and other provisions. Data validation of potential beneficiaries. online / offline online / offline Determination of beneficiaries 4 stages 4 stages Distribution of funds 4 tranches per year 2 tranches per year PKH Facilitator support Ideal ratio 1:250 Ideal Ratio 1:100 Group meeting and Family Development Sessions (FDS) once a month once every 3 months Beneficiaries’ commitment verification once a month once every 6 months Updating beneficiary data once a month once every 3 months Source: PKH Implementation Guideline 2021, MoSA 2.3 Insights into the Four Selected Social Protection Programs This section outlines the four Social Protection programs under review in this study: PKH, Program Sembako, BLT-DD, and BPJS Employment insurance. It is important to note that in many cases these programs have undergone significant changes over the past four years pertaining to institutional structures, how beneficiaries are selected, and in some cases also how benefits are delivered. The uneven communication or understanding of these changes may have further complicated program implementation at the local level, resulting in differences in the way existing policies are carried out in practice. 47 https://ambalresmi.kec-ambal.kebumenkab.go.id/index.php/web/artikel/4/425; https://pemberdayaan.kulonprogokab.go.id/detil/1077/ tahapan-selanjutnya-pembukaan-rekening-calon-penerima-blt-dd https://www.bpjsketenagakerjaan.go.id/cara-klaim.html 48 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 15 2.3.1 Program Keluarga Harapan (PKH) Program design. The PKH program is a conditional cash transfer (CCT) which seeks, not only to provide financial support to recipients, but also endeavors to induce behavioral change. The program is designed to encourage families to invest in their children’s education and healthcare, with the goal of enhancing the wellbeing of the next generation. To receive the cash transfers, beneficiary families must fulfil certain conditions, such as ensuring that children attend school regularly and participate in health-related activities, including immunizations and prenatal care. As a result, effective implementation of the program necessitates direct facilitation at multiple levels to ensure the attainment of program objectives. This facilitation is provided by individuals referred to as ‘Pendamping PKH’ or PKH facilitators. In addition to addressing administrative challenges, PKH facilitators are tasked with equipping beneficiaries with knowledge during the Family Development Sessions (FDS). These encompass various modules, including a) health and nutrition; b) parenting and education, c) family financial management and business planning, d) child protection; and e) social welfare. Determining the beneficiaries. As of 2021, as outlined in the PKH implementation guide,49 the selection of PKH beneficiaries has followed a comprehensive and multifaceted approach which has relied on a series of steps and criteria, as shown in Figure 5 below. This procedure encompasses various processes, including cross-referencing potential participants’ information from the DTKS database (referred to as the beneficiary pre-list), data verification and validation carried out by the district facilitator/coordinator, confirmation of commitments from those who are selected as beneficiaries, and the finalization of beneficiary selection. These processes use specific socio-economic indicators stipulated within the DTKS, which encompass crucial details such as household income, assets, and other relevant factors. Figure 5 Verification and validation processes for PKH beneficiaries up to 2021 Pre-list of PKH Subnational Coordinators Potential and Facilitators Beneficiaries 1 2 DFSS conducts a thorough review • Initial meeting and and cleansing of socialization about PKH to DTKS data. potential beneficiaries • Home visit to validate prospective beneficiary data DTKS Data Directorate of Family Validated Data of Potential Social Security (DFSS) Beneficiaries 3 DFSS authorizes the validated data. Data List of Approved Party involved Beneficiaries Process Source: OPM analysis, adopted from the 2021 MoSA presentation on PKH knowledge and policies, presented during technical guidance sessions for PKH coordinator/facilitators. Since 2021, MoSA has made changes to PKH implementation processes. Specifically, facilitators are no longer responsible for validating the pre-list of beneficiaries. The emphasis now lies on consistent updating of DTKS data, a duty overseen by the district government. More details about this are provided in Section 3, which delves into the research findings. Ministry of Social Affairs. 2021. Family Hope Program Knowledge and Policies in 2021. Training Presentation. 49 16 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Benefit value and its delivery system. PKH disburses transfers to beneficiaries in four instalments throughout the year, with the amount of financial assistance varying based on the family’s composition. Within the health component, PKH beneficiaries consist of families with pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding women (with a maximum of two pregnancies), as well as early childhood members aged zero to six years (with a maximum of two children). For the education component, PKH beneficiaries include families with school-aged children ranging from elementary to high school level (up to 21 years old). PKH also extends to individuals with disabilities and the elderly (aged 60 and above) within beneficiary households. Initially, PKH beneficiary transfers were provided in cash, distributed through the national post office (PT Pos) across all PKH implementation areas. From 2018, distribution shifted to non-cash methods involving Himbara banks, and the use of post offices was discontinued. Under this non-cash distribution approach, beneficiaries are provided with a savings account and a KKS family welfare debit card. Beneficiaries could access their funds via the bank’s ATMs or through bank agents. A study conducted in 2019 on the disbursement of PKH funds revealed that 64 percent of beneficiaries in the Eastern region of Indonesia (which largely consists of remote areas) expressed a preference for using an ATM machine (in comparison to the national average of 69 percent preferring bank accounts). Their preference was based on the confidence that they could access all their benefits without incurring charges from other parties. Several obstacles, however, were cited related to bank account usage, including absent agents, insufficient liquidity, and informal fees for cashing out.50 In 2023, there were two methods for disbursing PKH funds to beneficiaries. In addition to the continued use of banks, MoSA has also shifted delivery methods for some beneficiaries to the post office. Beneficiaries identified before 2023 continued to receive funds either through bank transfers or the post office (the latter particularly in provinces in Papua). For beneficiaries identified in 2023, all PKH funds were distributed in cash through a designated post office. As per MoSA’s explanation, the reintroduction of Post Offices was aimed at resolving various issues associated with the distribution of debit cards to beneficiaries. 2.3.2 Program Sembako Program design. In contrast to PKH, Program Sembako is a form of social assistance with a more specific objective of addressing families’ essential food needs. This program represents an improvement to the previous in-kind subsidized rice distribution (Raskin and Rastra program), being designed to enhance food assistance through precise targeting, suitable quantities, timely delivery, quality control, and efficient management. Due to the simplicity of its objectives, Program Sembako does not appear to require a program implementation structure as extensive as that provided by PKH. For several years, approximately from 2017 to 2021, a Regional Coordinator (Korda) was assigned by Directorate General of Handling the Poor (DG PFM) to assist district offices in implementing this program. However, from 2022 onward, following changes in the institutional structure of MoSA and program oversight and implementation management, there is no longer a Korda in place. Determining the beneficiaries. Recipients of Program Sembako include economically disadvantaged families registered in the DTKS. As per MoSA Regulation No. 4 of 2023, the allocation of beneficiary families in each district (quota) is established by the Directorate General overseeing the program, currently the Director General for Social Empowerment (Ditjen Dayasos) in MoSA. This distribution is established based on the level of poverty in each district, as reported by BPS. Regarding this quota allocation, in accordance with the general provisions outlined in the DTKS update, local governments have the authority to request the removal or inclusion of beneficiary families (Keluarga Penerima Manfaat - KPM) while considering the poverty criteria outlined in the DTKS management guidelines. Benefit value and delivery system. From 2017 to 2023, various modifications were introduced concerning the mechanism for distributing program funds to beneficiaries and the approach to the utilization of these MicroSave Consulting (2019) Report on operations assessment and impact evaluation of Program Keluarga Harapan (PKH). 50 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 17 funds by beneficiaries, as shown in Table 5. A notable change in 2022 involved ending the requirement to utilize Program Sembako benefits at e-warungs. Instead, the funds are now provided in cash, affording beneficiaries the freedom to use them to purchase food essentials anywhere they choose. Conversely, this implies that the program cannot guarantee that the benefits received by the beneficiary are indeed used for purchasing essential or nutritious food items. This modification was initiated by MoSA, prompted by an evaluation of e-warungs which uncovered instances of misappropriation of Program Sembako funds intended for poor families.51 Monitoring conducted from 2020 to 2021 by the Secretariat of the Social Assistance Control Team identified various anomalies in the processes for redeeming Program Sembako benefits. A recurring issue was observed whereby a significant share of beneficiaries (81.8 percent) were unable to select the specific food items they required. These food items were distributed in pre-packaged form, contrary to the established process52 and around 60 percent beneficiaries were uncertain whether the value of the received items equated to IDR 200,000 (US$12.6). Additionally, specific cases were noted in certain regions whereby food distributors had been designated in advance, leading e-warungs to acquire pre-packaged materials from these appointed distributors.53 Table 5 Modifications in the implementation of Program Sembako Period Benefit value and delivery modality Guideline for utilization of food assistance 2017 – 2019 Non-cash through beneficiary e-wallet • Disbursement of Program Sembako funds is account in Government-owned bank. IDR restricted to non-cash transactions. Funds 110,000 (US$7) per month must be used to obtain rice and/or eggs at authorized e-warungs.54 2020-2022 Non-cash through beneficiary e-wallet • Disbursement of Program Sembako funds is account in Government-owned Bank and restricted to non-cash transactions and must Bank Syariah Indonesia (BSI). IDR 200,000 be used for the purchase of not just rice and (US$12.6) per month eggs, but also other sources of protein (such as beef, chicken, tempe, tofu) carbohydrates   (such as corn or sago), and vitamins (such as vegetables and fruits) at authorized e-warungs. • Special procedure: the funds are distributed non-cash on a quarterly basis to beneficiaries’ accounts. Beneficiaries utilize a debit card to make food purchases at e-warungs. Transactions are permissible every 2-3 months. Cash disbursement in Papua and • Beneficiaries receive cash to purchase food. West Papua facilitated through PT Pos Indonesia. This alternative approach was adopted due to the inadequate infrastructure in the region. 2023- The benefit is IDR 200,000 (US$12.6) per • The benefit can be used to purchase essential beneficiary family per month, distributed foods according to beneficiaries’ needs at any in both cash and non-cash methods by location. the bank or post office. https://www.antaranews.com/berita/3422925/kemensos-tak-lagi-gunakan-e-warong-untuk-salurkan-bpnt 51 As per the regulations, recipients of Program Sembako have the option to select the desired quantity and quality of food items. 52 Sekretariat Tim Pengendali Pelaksanaan Penyaluran Bantuan Sosial Secara Nontunai, Hasil Pemantauan Program Sembako dan PKH. Jakarta, 53 2020-2021. E-warung refers to a bank agent, trader, or any other party that has partnered with Himbara banks and is authorized as a location for with- 54 drawing or purchasing social assistance from MoSA. 18 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 2.3.3 Bantuan Langsung Tunai – Dana Desa (BLT-DD) Program design. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, village funds55 were primarily allocated to village development and community empowerment programs, following the Ministry of Villages regulation Permendes No. 11/2019. However, with the onset of the pandemic, the priorities for using Village Funds shifted. Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1/2020, aimed at safeguarding both public health and the national economy, provided the basis for re-focusing the utilization of village funds on health spending, social safety nets, and economic recovery. A critical additional measure taken to address the impact of COVID-19 was the provision of Village Fund Direct Cash Assistance (BLT-DD) to vulnerable families who lost their livelihoods and had members susceptible to chronic illness, with exclusions for those already receiving PKH or Program Sembako benefits. To enact these changes, Permendes No. 6/2020 amended the previous regulation, placing greater emphasis on using village funds to improve the quality of life in rural communities. Village funds have a clear legal basis for how they are used. As outlined in Presidential Regulation No. 104/2021, the 2022 national budget (Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara - APBN) mandated that village funds should be used in the following manner: 40 percent had to be allocated for BLT-DD, a minimum of 20 percent had to be allocated for food security programs, at least eight percent had to be allocated for funding support to combat COVID-19, and the remaining funds were earmarked for other priority sector programs. The allocation of village funds – the total sum transferred to a village - is determined through a specific formula, with one factor considering the geographical challenges of the village, as indicated by the IKG score.56 In the current, 2023 fiscal year, the allocation of BLT-DD is governed by Ministry of Finance regulation (PMK) No. 201/PMK.07/2022. This obliges villages to allocate a portion of the village funds to finance the BLT-DD program, ranging from a minimum of 10 percent to a maximum of 25 percent.57 Additionally, the use of village funds for BLT-DD in the fiscal year 2024 is regulated by MoF Regulation No. 146/2023. It is crucial to highlight that this regulation is not examined in the present study, which focuses solely on collecting data about the implementation of BLT-DD up to the year 2023. At district level, the Village Community Empowerment Office (Dinas Pemberdayaan Masyarakat–Desa - PMD) is responsible for providing technical assistance to sub-district and village governments. Village facilitators (Pendamping Desa) are recruited by MoV, and are stationed in the sub-districts, to assist villages in planning and spending village funds, including BLT-DD. Determining the beneficiaries. Several important rules dictate the beneficiary selection process to qualify for BLT-DD, in a specific manner: • Permendes No. 6/2020 stipulates that BLT-DD is intended for impoverished households who are not benefiting from PKH, Program Sembako and Kartu Prakerja programs, have suffered livelihood losses, and have family members prone to chronic illnesses. To identify these households, villages were tasked with data collection, commencing from sub-hamlets (or neighborhood) and progressing through the hamlet and village tiers, with the support of volunteers. Data collection outcomes are discussed at the village level (through village meeting or musyawarah desa) to achieve consensus on beneficiary selection. • Subsequently, PMK No. 40/2020 underscores the criteria for BLT-DD beneficiaries, emphasizing that they should be financially disadvantaged or vulnerable families residing within the village. These recipients should not overlap with beneficiaries of assistance from PKH, Program Sembako, and 55 Village Funds originate from the national budget (APBN), in accordance with the Village Law No. 6/2014. These funds are allocated directly to villages through the district/municipality annual budget. Their main objective is to finance various village government activities, such as devel- opment projects, community development, and public empowerment initiatives. 56 The total value of village funds allocated to a given village thus indirectly reflects the degree of remoteness, as the IKG score is one, weighted factor in the allocation formula. However, the IKG does not provide a cutoff value by which to distinguish remote from non-remote; and as only one input to the composite score that determines Village Fund allocation, is only imperfectly related to the amount of BLT-DD funds a village receives, or the number of families that will receive BLT-DD support as a result. See Article 35a of PMK No.201/PMK07/2022 57 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 19 Kartu Prakerja pre-employment cards. According to PMK No. 40/2020, the process of identifying BLT-DD recipients can be facilitated by taking into account the data available in DTKS. • Lastly, PMK No. 201/PMK.07/2022 regulates that families must be registered in the data on poor families and must belong to decile 1 in the database for extreme poverty initiatives (known as P3KE).58 If the village lacks data on poor families in decile 1, potential beneficiaries can be selected from families registered in decile 2 to decile 4. In the absence of available data on poor families, the village government may use the following criteria: a) families that have lost their livelihood, b) the presence of family members prone to illness or chronic illness, and/or with a disability, c) non-recipients of any social assistance program, and d) households with a single elderly household member. Benefit value and delivery system. Since the initiation of BLT-DD, each beneficiary is eligible to receive IDR 300,000 (US$19.28) per month per family. The village government withdraws the funds from the village account and then disburses it to beneficiaries as cash. Only a limited number of villages (primarily in Java) opt for bank account transfers. 2.3.4 BPJS Employment Insurance The groundwork for providing social security to workers in Indonesia was initiated as early as 1947, with a primary focus on Government employees. In the early 1990s, the scope expanded to encompass private companies. The commitment to cover the entire population gained more emphasis with Law No. 40/2004 concerning the national social security system, followed by Law No 24/2011, which established a dedicated agency to administer social insurance in Indonesia as depicted in Figure 6 below. Following the issuance of these two laws, a merger took place between private insurance companies and this new Government body, resulting in the formation of a single public legal entity entrusted with the mandate to provide social insurance to the entire population. Figure 6 Employment social security: a historical timeline 1947 1977 1992 2004 2011 2014 2022 Law No. Government Law No. 3/1992 Law No. Law No. PT Jamsostek JKP was 33/1947 Regulation on workers’ 40/2004 on the 24/2011 underwent a introduced as on work No. 33/1977 social security national social provides the transformation another form accident on the and the security system institutional into public of workforce implementation establishment (SJSN) framework legal entity and social security of the workers’ of PT Jamsostek for the Social became BPJS program, social insurance as the Security Ketenagakerjaan, offering cash program (Astek) organizing body Administration responsible for assistance, Agency (BPJS) administering the job market workforce social information security program and training to workers who faces layoffs (PHK) Source: BPJS Ketenagakerjaan Program design. The BPJS Employment program serves as a Social Protection initiative, offering employment insurance to workers. It is structured to offer financial support to individuals who have lost their income-generating capacity due to circumstances such as accidents, fatalities, layoffs, terminations, or resignations. The program also aims to provide job training and job market information to its members. Work Accident Insurance (JKK)59, Death Insurance (JKM) and Old Age Insurance (JHT) are part of the five In 2022, the Coordinating Ministry for Human Development and Cultural Affairs (CMEA) adopted the database of the National Population and 58 Family Planning Agency (Badan Kependudukan dan Keluarga Berencana Nasional: BKKBN), which was updated in 2021, and leveraged it as the data for the Acceleration of Extreme Poverty Alleviation (Pensasaran Percepatan Penghapusan Kemiskinan Ekstrem: P3KE) to target extreme poverty programs, in conjunction with DTKS. Based on Presidential Instruction No. 4 year 2020 (Inpres Nomor 4 Tahun 2022). 59 According to Government Regulation (PP) No. 44/2015, Work Accident Benefit refers to the provision of cash and/or health services when par- ticipants suffer from accidents or illnesses caused by the work environment (including accidents during the work commute, as well as illnesses arising from the work environment). 20 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges crucial programs provided by BPJS employment, alongside the pension scheme (JP) and job loss insurance (JKP).60 Membership of BPJS Employment. It is mandatory for employers to enroll employees and for non-wage workers to enroll themselves. Typically, companies fully cover JKK, JKM and JHT contributions, usually in the form of allowances. As a result, these contributions are reflected in employee salary deductions, even though they do not actually decrease employees’ wages. Employers fully cover the contributions, which vary from 0.24 percent to 5.7 percent of the employee’s wages, based on the level of risk in the work environment. The evaluation of the contribution amount takes place at least every two years.61 According to BPJS Employment reports in 2021, around 30.7 million active workers and 725,000 participating companies were registered with BPJS (a 2.3 percent increase from the previous year). However, this figure accounts for only about 33 percent of the total workforce in Indonesia. The report emphasizes that the challenges in expanding coverage are connected to service issues, which can be addressed by simplifying membership registration through digitization for both registration and claims processes.62 In mid-2023, BPJS Employment introduced a new initiative to engage potential participants in rural areas, known as KKBC or Kerja Keras Bebas Cemas (literally “Hard Work, Worry-Free”). This initiative arises from BPJS’ recognition that rural communities have limited awareness of social security, primarily due to its association with formal or office workers. Currently, BPJS is focusing on non-wage workers (Bukan Penerima Upah - BPU). Through this KKBC outreach initiative, BPJS aims to increase the number of program participants to 70 million by 2026. Beginning with monthly contributions of IDR 16,800 (US$1.06), non- wage workers will be entitled to coverage under the JKK and JKM components.63 Benefit delivery. BPJS Employment participants can access benefits by submitting a claim request online or at the nearest branch office. This should be accompanied by documents related to the incident, including the membership card, work accident certificate, death certificate, and so on. Benefits received are calculated based on the contributions made. As per Law No. 24 of 2011, BPJS Employment comprises three primary programs: Work Accident Insurance (JKK), Death Insurance (JKM), and 60 Old Age Insurance (JHT). On July 1, 2015, a new program - a pension scheme - was introduced. Additionally, through PP No. 37 of 2021, the Government introduced another new program, Job Loss Insurance (JKP). Sengupta, S., Tsuruga, I., Dankmeyer, C. (2023) Social insurance and climate change in Indonesia: Implications for Adaptive Social Protection 61 Ambitions, Jakarta: ILO BPJS (2021) Laporan Terintegrasi 2021: Transformasi Digital untuk Tingkatkan Layanan Unggul. 62 https://www.bpjsketenagakerjaan.go.id/berita/28507/BPJS-Ketenagakerjaan-Launching-KKBC-Masuk-Desa; https://mediaindonesia.com/ 63 megapolitan/596557/bpjs-ketenagakerjaan-sosialisasikan-program-kkbc-di-lima-kelurahan Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 21 3 Findings: Challenges with Social 3 Protection Implementation in Remote Areas This section will start with a brief description of the study locations, offering an overview of the remote settings and the typical challenges faced in these regions. This is followed by a presentation of the study’s findings, organized into six distinct areas of inquiry. Certain findings discussed in this section are applicable across all locations. However, at the end of each area of inquiry, a dedicated box is included to encapsulate the findings and emphasize the challenges that are specifically observed in remote locations. Figure 7 Map of Study Locations 3.1 Overview of Study Locations As discussed in Section 1, this study gathered primary data from three districts representing the western, central, and eastern regions of Indonesia. This sub-section provides a concise overview of the study locations. As previously explained, these study locations were chosen as remote areas based on national- level information. Bengkulu Utara, the largest district in Bengkulu Province. Reachable from the provincial capital in around two hours, it encompasses 19 sub-districts and incorporates six small islands, the largest of which is Enggano, which is a 12-hour journey from the mainland. In addition to these islands, there are other hard- to-reach areas on the mainland, particularly in hilly regions and plantations, where some roads remain unpaved. Donggala, a district in Central Sulawesi Province. It spans across both the north and southwest sides of Palu City. The district’s capital, Banawa, is situated approximately 50 km from Palu City and can be reached by private vehicle or public transportation in about 1 to 1.5 hours. At least five of its 16 sub- districts are remote, with limited transportation options and challenging vehicular access. These regions are typically marked by hilly or mountainous terrain, with often unpaved roads, potholes, and rocky paths that become particularly difficult to navigate during the rainy season, given the natural conditions that can trigger landslides. Seram Bagian Barat (SBB) on Seram Island. It is accessible by ferry from Ambon Island. The ferry terminal is roughly a one-hour drive from the center of the provincial capital. The ferry journey takes approximately 22 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges two hours to reach the opposite pier, from where an additional one-hour drive is required to reach the SBB district center. Overall, the journey from the provincial capital to the SBB district center usually takes around four to five hours. Within SBB, there are several geographically challenging locations, particularly islands and some highland villages. It is estimated that approximately 30 out of the 92 villages in SBB lack adequate transportation access. Like other remote and isolated areas in Indonesia, the villages visited for this research present challenges in terms of access and facilities in general. The following table summarizes the situations encountered in the field. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 23 24 Table 6 Overview of Study Locations Bengkulu Utara Donggala Seram Bagian Barat Air Sebayur Bukit Harapan Ketong Kamonji Waesala Alang Asaude Access to village from district capital Air Sebayur, the biggest and the Bukit Harapan is situated Ketong is a village located Kamonji is approximately Waesala is located along the Alang Asaude, located most remote village in the district, approximately 80 km from in the northernmost point 158 km from the district district highway, benefiting next to Waesala, has is accessible through mining roads the district center, accessible of Balaesang Tanjung, center, which translates from well-maintained asphalt easy access due to from the district center (approx. by car in about three to four approx. 167 km from the to a four-hour car journey. roads. It is about 44 km from its proximity to the three to four hours’ drive), both hours through relatively well- district center, or around a Since there is no public the district center, reachable district highway. Public paved and unpaved. Public maintained roads. However, five-hour car journey. The transportation available, in an hour by car. Public transportation to transportation is unavailable, with public transportation is not road conditions are rather residents rely on private transportation to the district the district center is residents primarily relying on available, and the primary challenging, with dirt and vehicles for travel. center is available, but it accessible, with around motorbikes and some using cars. mode of transportation for rocky terrain. The village There is also a resident- is limited to two to three 2-3 vehicles per day In the rainy season, the dirt roads residents is motorcycles, with becomes isolated as the roads operated taxi service to vehicles per day, costing and a one-way cost of become treacherous, requiring some using cars. become impassable during the provincial capital, but IDR50,000 (US$3.21) for a IDR50,000 (US$3.21). tire chains for motorbikes and the rainy season. Public it departs only once it has one-way trip. cars. transportation is unavailable, enough passengers, costing with only a resident-owned IDR120,000 (US$7.71). taxi service, which charges IDR120,000 (US$7.71) per person. Remote locations within the village The village center is far from Alas Bangun stands as the Two hamlets, located on The hamlet which is Tatinang, an isolated hamlet, There are no remote three outlying hamlets, requiring most remote hamlet from separate mountains and the most remote from lacks land access despite hamlets because approximately a two-hour the village center, with farthest from the village the village center is in being situated on the same residential areas are motorbike journey. In addition to challenging road access. center (two mountains away), close proximity to a landmass. To reach this area, concentrated near the their remote location, road access The distance to the village are connected by a rough and neighboring village. The one must take a motorboat village office. to these hamlets is constrained, center is approx. 22 km, and perilous route, especially in road leading to this hamlet via the sea, with the journey particularly in the rainy season residents typically rely on the rainy season. is a combination of dirt taking approximately 15 when the roads become muddy. motorbikes for transportation. and stone, with certain minutes, with a round-trip In dry conditions, the journey sections showing signs of cost of IDR35,000 (US$2.25). to the village center takes deteriorated asphalt. around half an hour, but it extends to three to four hours during wet conditions. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Bengkulu Utara Donggala Seram Bagian Barat Air Sebayur Bukit Harapan Ketong Kamonji Waesala Alang Asaude Mobile phone connection/ internet access Mobile phone and internet The availability of mobile Signal reception is absent Internet connectivity is This village has fairly stable In general, it is good networks are unreliable and phone and internet networks within the village due to the reliable; however, in the phone connection and and stable, but if there can only be accessed in specific is extremely restricted, with single cellular service provider event of a power outage, internet access, but there is heavy rain or a power locations. Typically, residents visit access limited to specific tower, which was damaged the village loses its internet are still several areas of the outage, internet access in these designated areas when they locations, particularly those in by lightning and remains signal. hamlet that do not have the village is unavailable. need to use the internet or make higher-altitude areas. unrepaired. For improved access to the internet. If phone calls. signal quality, residents need there is heavy rain or a power to travel to a location on the outage, internet access in the cliff’s edge, approximately village is unavailable. seven km away. Banking / payment services 64 There are bank agents in There is a bank agent There are no bank agents in Bank agents are available This village has three bank This village has one every hamlet in this area. The available in one hamlet and the vicinity. The nearest post in the village as well as in agents. The nearest post bank agent. The nearest nearest post office is located one in the village center. The office is situated in a village in the neighboring village, office is located in the district post office is located in the neighboring sub-district, nearest post office is located the neighboring sub-district, and the nearest bank is center, approximately 44 km in the district center, approximately 30 minutes by in the neighboring district, which is approximately 45 km situated in the neighboring away (a one-hour drive). approximately 44 km motorbike from the village center. taking about 1.5 hours to away, or around one hour’s sub-district, which is 40 away (one hour drive). During the dry season, it takes reach when the roads are dry, drive. km away. The closest post 90 minutes from remote hamlet and over two hours when office can be found in a in this village to reach this post they are wet. village in the adjacent sub- office, but it will take more than district, approximately 35 two hours in rainy season. km away. 64 Most of the bank agents in these remote villages are BRILink. Bank Mandiri agents were also found in the remote village of Bengkulu Utara, but not in Donggala and SBB. All bank agents can serve electronic payments and Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges bank transfers. Some shops in study villages in Bengkulu Utara also function as bank agents. 25 Figure 8 Study Locations This photo captures one of the hamlets in SBB, which is isolated from the village center and accessible only by a 15-minute motorboat ride. This track leads to a village in Bengkulu Utara: it is an unpaved road that can become challenging to navigate, especially during the rainy season. This photo shows the state of the road in a village in Donggala, which lacks any street lights for illumination at night. Several Social Protection programs are currently operational in these areas. In this study, an attempt was made to identify Social Protection programs operating in the district that are managed by central or provincial authorities, but we did not delve into the specifics of programs originating from district governments unless explicitly mentioned. Apart from the four national Social Protection programs that are central to this study, several other programs are implemented in these regions. However, the respondents we met were unable to provide detailed explanations of all these additional programs, including information on when they have been implemented and how beneficiaries are determined. The information collected from all study locations lists several other social assistance programs: 26 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges • Presidential assistance, providing cash support of IDR 300,000 (US$18.89) per month, to around 500 family beneficiaries (non-PKH/Program Sembako), • A recent initiative from the National Food Agency, known as the Government Food Reserve program65, • Food assistance or cash assistance from the provincial government, provided as a one-time provision with an estimated value of IDR 900,000 (US$56.67) per family66, • PIP for students from poor families, • Provision of subsidized health insurance (PBI-JKN) for individuals in need. Incomplete information on existing programs pertains not only to the programs mentioned above but also to the four Social Protection programs observed in this research. The next section provides a more in-depth discussion regarding the availability of information. 3.2 Coverage of Social Protection Programs Collecting data on the number of program recipients, particularly in remote areas, poses a significant challenge, particularly for PKH and Program Sembako. According to interviews with district officials, the district’s primary focus for providing services in remote locations is centered on improving transportation access and enhancing physical public facilities. Beyond transportation and physical service issues, there was a lack of understanding of other challenges faced by individuals in these remote locations. District governments and program implementers possess only a general awareness of service limitations in remote areas. The existing data lacks disaggregation between remote and non-remote areas, making it difficult for program implementers to directly address questions regarding potential issues with beneficiary coverage in remote areas. PKH and Program Sembako use different methods to monitor program coverage in remote areas. In interviews with the district-level social affairs office staff (Dinas Sosial/Dinsos), it was mentioned that, for PKH, they depend on the PKH district coordinator (Korkab), as the Korkab is deemed to have more up- to-date information regarding recipient data since they need to report it regularly to MoSA. Meanwhile, identifying the overall count of Program Sembako recipients can pose some challenges. The data must be manually extracted from SIKS-NG, which lacks a feature for downloading the available data, such as into an Excel format. If the data needs to be disaggregated to the sub-district and village level, Dinsos must open each page in SIKS-NG individually and manually transfer the data to another format, a process that naturally consumes time. Nevertheless, the Dinsos reiterated to the research team the importance of cross-checking the data obtained through SIKS-NG with information from the post office, as they believed the post office holds more accurate data. This contrasts with BLT-DD, for which adequate data are accessible at both the Village Community Empowerment Office (Dinas Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Desa - Dinas PMD) and village level. The village government compiles data on BLT-DD recipients in their village using the format provided by the Dinas PMD. They fill in the data with support from village facilitators. The collected village data are then submitted to Dinas PMD to ensure it has comprehensive data for all villages. The village government is required to provide various data before receiving the village funds transfer from the central government and subsequently disbursing them to the beneficiaries. Despite this, it remains challenging to identify the existence of BLT-DD coverage issues in remote areas. Despite the availability of data per village, the Dinas PMD cannot definitively confirm the classification of villages into remote and non-remote categories. (Dinas PMD was not aware of the IKG data, and so was not able to confirm whether the villages on the 65 This program distributes rice to more than 21 million poor households, where each household receives 10 kg/month of subsidized rice. Pemer- intah Perpanjang Bantuan Pangan Beras hingga Akhir 2023 – Perum BULOG This program was mentioned by respondents in all study locations: however, it proved difficult to obtain clarity on when it occurred or other 66 details. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 27 IKG list are indeed classified correctly as remote or non-remote). Consensus is required on this matter before it is possible to proceed with further analysis. The overall count of BLT-DD recipients is computed in proportion to the village funds percentage. The calculation of village funds accounts for both the population of impoverished individuals in the village, the village’s IKG score and the level of development of the village. Accessible data for BPJS Employment are held at the branch office level and are not further divided into smaller areas, including sub-districts and villages. Not all districts host BPJS branch offices: for instance, the BPJS branch office in Bengkulu Utara caters not only to the Bengkulu Utara area but also to the Mukomuko Regency. The participant coverage data they possess encompasses both districts, without a specific breakdown for Bengkulu Utara. The central BPJS office also mentioned that they lack detailed data at the sub-district or village level. At the national level, accessible data extends only to regional offices, and these are primarily utilized for internal purposes, with limited detail shared with the public. The table below provides an overview of the Social Protection coverage data67 gathered from each district location visited in the study. At the district level, not all data could be disaggregated at the village level, so some information was obtained directly from the village government. At least for PKH, coverage of households in the study areas appears to be higher than the all-Indonesia average (slightly so in Bengkulu Utara and more significantly so in the other two districts). Table 7 Snapshot of coverage of four Social Protection programs in study locations: Percentage of all households in the village receiving support. Program BPJS District Village PKH Sembako BLT-DD employment Bengkulu Utara District total 18% 42% 9% 8%* Bukit Harapan 14% 34% 4%   Air Sebayur 15% 21% 4%   Donggala District total 19% 29%** 10% 9% Ketong 20%       Kamonji 22%       Seram Bag Barat District total 22% 27% 13%   Waesala 32% 46% 5%   Alang Asaude 23% 31% 24%   Source: Administrative data from each program implementer. 1. This is a snapshot of data collected during the study fieldwork (or as per end of September 2023), with the caveat that this information may vary depending on the time of collection. No data was collected for SBB for BPJS Employment since no visits or interviews were conducted with the BPJS office in that area. 2. Percentages are calculated as a percentage of all households at a particular location, as it was not possible to establish the number of eligible households. * The coverage data for BPJS Employment in Bengkulu Utara includes data from the Mukomuko Regency area. The figure represents the count of non-wage earners. ** The Donggala Dinsos office was not unable to provide data on the number of beneficiaries for the Program Sembako. The data presented here were sourced from DG Dayasos. Analyzing the figures and percentages provided above, it is apparent that there is considerable variation between villages in the same district in terms of the percentage of households that are covered by a given program. The study successfully gathered the majority of data on beneficiary coverage in the six villages of the study locations from each local program implementer (i.e., Dinsos, Dinas PMD, BPJS branch offices and village governments). Unfortunately, there is a lack of available data on the number of individuals or households who should qualify for social assistance, for both PKH, Program Sembako, and BLT-DD. This makes it impossible for the study to compare the covered beneficiaries with the eligible Coverage rates refer to overall population, not eligible population. 67 28 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges individuals/households, thereby complicating the determination of whether a coverage issue truly exists in this case. This makes it hard to know whether differences in coverage rates between locations reflect variations in the level of need, or variations in the adequacy of the program in reaching all those in need. When examining program coverage over the past couple of years, Dinsos faces challenges in providing data for PKH and Program Sembako. However, the study acquired data from the central program implementers on the number of beneficiary families for PKH and Program Sembako from 2021 to 2023, as shown in Figure 8 below. There has been a reduction in the number of beneficiaries each year, but it is important to note that this data likely includes beneficiary expansion in response to COVID-19 impacts (see Annex C). Figure 9 PKH and Program Sembako coverage in study locations (Beneficiary families, 2021-2023) 2021 2022 2023 35.057 33.948 32.013 22.581 21.641 20.090 17.466 15.866 15.541 15.336 13.595 13.360 12.807 12.796 12.529 10.626 10.017 9.302 PKH Sembako PKH Sembako PKH Sembako Bengkulu Utara Donggala Seram Bagian Barat Source: Administrative data from central implementers, for coverage in December each year. Changes in program coverage Challenges in ensuring beneficiary coverage in remote areas over recent years are particularly noticeable with regard to the BLT- • Currently, a notable challenge exists due to the unavailability of clearly DD. The percentage increase or disaggregated data for remote and non-remote areas. This impedes the ability decrease in BLT-DD beneficiaries to definitively assess the presence of a coverage issue in this case. varies among villages, depending DTKS lacks a feature that enables Dinsos to showcase data based on sub- on the annual amount of village districts or villages. This limitation impedes their capacity to evaluate PKH funds received. Substantial and Program Sembako coverage, including the categorization of locations changes occurred between 2022 into remote and non-remote areas. and 2023, driven by central The same issue is noted with BLT-DD, for which no disaggregated data are directives. In 2023, following available for remote and non-remote locations. the easing of pandemic-induced economic shock, there was a Additionally, there is a lack of available data concerning the number of notable reduction in the allocation individuals/households eligible to receive social assistance. Hence, it is of village funds designated for challenging to make accurate comparisons between current recipients BLT-DD, which constituted only 25 of assistance and eligible individuals, hindering a clear description of percent of the total village funds, in coverage. contrast to the previous allocation Even though BPJS Employment recognizes the need to expand coverage in in 2022 of up to 40 percent. This rural and remote areas, they also lack data that is specifically categorized naturally results in a decrease in the between remote and non-remote areas. number of beneficiaries, averaging • Subnational implementers lack a comprehensive understanding of the around a 50 percent reduction at challenges in remote areas, resulting in an incomplete focus on addressing the district level. the unique obstacles faced by these regions. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 29 3.3 Outreach and Communication Program implementers’ understanding of Social Protection programs Broadly, program implementers at the subnational level understand the general objectives of the programs they manage and the eligibility criteria for beneficiaries. However, upon closer examination, several areas of misunderstanding became apparent across the three study locations concerning program procedures. This confusion entails uncertainties about the more detailed procedures in the existing regulations, as well as the new regulations and procedures that subnational stakeholders need to reference. For instance, PKH facilitators lack a comprehensive understanding of the new procedures they need to implement, including why pre-list data validation activities have been omitted. They typically conduct these activities annually before determining PKH recipients (see also Figure 5). Currently, as per their explanation, beneficiary data are determined centrally and are typically only available during fund disbursement. Due to their limited involvement in the beneficiary determination process, PKH facilitators are unable to provide a clear explanation when queried about it. With the current lack of clarity on the program procedures, the facilitator said: “Often we cannot provide an explanation, PKH facilitators are also uncertain about the we can only say that it has been discontinuation of e-PKH68 and the transition to using determined by the central government...” the SIKS mobile application, which is perceived to have restricted functionality from the perspective Interview with a PKH facilitator in of PKH facilitators. Their access to this application is Bengkulu Utara. mainly restricted to updating information in the event of beneficiary death or altering the contact details of the primary beneficiary. On these and other aspects of the program, PKH facilitators noted that they have not received sufficient explanations from the central program implementers. This was confirmed in discussion with the Directorate of Social Security, which is responsible for overseeing the implementation of PKH at the central level, who noted that changes to program procedures are currently in the planning stages. The anticipated changes involve relieving facilitators of the responsibility for validating and updating beneficiary data via e-PKH, given that, fundamentally, facilitators are not data collection officers. MoSA is encouraging an enhanced role for local governments in validating data on poor households for updating the DTKS. Despite the communication of this policy to PKH coordinators and facilitators since 2022, the Directorate of Social Security acknowledged that many still do not fully comprehend it. Additionally, the Directorate mentioned that the PKH implementation guidelines and instructions have not been adjusted to accommodate these changes. Currently, the guidelines and instructions in circulation date from 2021. The village governments also voiced uncertainty concerning the regulations they must adhere to when managing BLT-DD, especially regarding the criteria they should use to identify impoverished households within their village who should receive social assistance. They perceive that the living conditions of the people in their village are relatively uniform and indistinguishable, making it challenging to determine who among the impoverished individuals is in greater need. This matter is elaborated further in Section 3.4, which discusses the intake process. It appears that there is a continued need for clear communication regarding these diverse issues. Concerning the execution of BPJS Employment, the staff at the branch office we met in Bengkulu Utara and Donggala appeared to comprehend the objective of this social insurance, as well as the significance E-PKH is an application introduced within the PKH program around 2017. It serves to document the entire workflow within PKH, commencing 68 with the identification of potential beneficiaries and proceeding through data verification, validation of potential recipients, confirmation of participant commitments, and program monitoring. PKH facilitators could utilize this application by installing it on their mobile phones. The use of this application continued until 2020. 30 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges of reaching residents in remote locations and the impoverished individuals who typically engage in informal sector work. Strategy for outreach and communication in remote locations With the exception of those engaged in BPJS Employment, program implementers indicated that they did not possess a specific strategy for disseminating information to the community, let alone a dedicated strategy for remote areas. Dinsos in Bengkulu Utara mentioned that they depend on PKH facilitators or sub-district social welfare workers (TKSK) to explain to villages about the PKH and Program Sembako, respectively. If required, they will send a letter to the village head, a practice confirmed by the village heads who often receive information from the district through letters. This is a communication method that is implemented universally, irrespective of the remoteness of a specific location. However, the limitations of this method of communication are more pronounced in remote areas which are difficult to reach, particularly for TKSK for Program Sembako who face constraints in terms of resources and funding. PKH facilitators also mentioned that they visited remote villages less often than non-remote villages. This is especially the case in SBB, where travel to islands incurs higher costs. The study assumes that the absence of specific data regarding program coverage in remote areas (as mentioned in Section 3.2) has left subnational implementers uncertain about the need for outreach to the poor in these remote locations. While implementers acknowledge the limited services available in these remote areas, implementers are unsure if there are also issues with program coverage in those locations. PKH facilitators also expressed a belief that they are not obliged to share information with village communities beyond those already registered as family beneficiaries of the program. This viewpoint was for example articulated by PKH facilitators in Bengkulu Utara and SBB. “… you have to be careful, do not give Throughout the fieldwork, the study team did not too much information, as there might be encounter any banners or other communications consequences later.” materials related to most of the programs displayed in the villages. Program implementers said that these Interview with a PKH facilitator in SBB. were only distributed at the beginning of program implementation. We did observe posters related to BPJS Employment, although their presence was limited. The lack of accessible information, readable by residents in remote areas (both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries), means that they are heavily dependent on updates from program implementers’ activities and visits. As mentioned earlier, these visits are quite limited. Residents in remote areas also face challenges in searching for information online due to limited connectivity. Dinas PMD collaborates with village facilitators who are stationed at the sub-district level to implement BLT-DD. The Dinas PMD expects that the village facilitator will communicate with and explain BLT- DD procedures to the villages. Prior to this, Dinas PMD and the facilitators developed standardized communication materials in accordance with established regulations, ensuring consistent communication across all villages. The challenge of reaching villages may not be as pronounced in BLT-DD, as village governments have sufficient operational budgets and resources to implement this program effectively. A somewhat distinct approach is employed when disseminating information concerning benefit delivery, typically including a schedule and a list of those entitled to receive their benefit. In addition to an official letter, the program implementer utilizes the WhatsApp application, using it to send information to the village head and hamlet head to promptly inform the beneficiaries (see also Section 3.7 for more detail). Regarding the extension of coverage in remote areas, BPJS Employment has a relatively well-defined strategy. BPJS Employment staff who were interviewed mentioned using several strategies, including Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 31 working with the subnational government to recruit vulnerable workers to be registered as participants. BPJS Employment staff at the district level also recognize the Perisai agent as an extension of their reach. These agents are recruited through partnerships with various local organizations (such as the All- Indonesia Workers Union (Serikat Pekerja Seluruh Indonesia - SPSI), a private union, in Bengkulu Utara) and undertake extensive village visits to reach out to and enroll residents as participants. BPJS Employment also collaborates with banks known for extending credit to small and medium entrepreneurs (SMEs). Through these bank partnerships, a significant portion of SMEs who receive KUR (credit for SMEs) are also registered with BPJS Employment. However, the strategy to expand the coverage of BPJS Employment lacks internal coherence, as each BPJS branch office is tasked with meeting all existing targets without consideration for available resources. The central BPJS designates four primary ecosystems for increased coverage: rural areas, markets, e-commerce/SMEs, and vulnerable workers. All four come with key performance indicators (KPIs) for BPJS regional and branch offices, which do not have the flexibility to prioritize specific ecosystems that are relevant to their area. This lack of flexibility presents significant challenges, particularly given their constrained resources (see also Section 3.6 on uptake capacity). Awareness of Social Protection programs among impoverished households in remote areas. The majority of beneficiaries understand the role of the social assistance which they receive, including PKH, Program Sembako, and BLT-DD. Nevertheless, some do not understand the criteria and procedures for becoming a beneficiary; they are only aware that social assistance is intended for impoverished households. As beneficiaries, they also posed several questions about program procedures, mostly related to benefit delivery, hinting to a lack of awareness about the programs they are enrolled in. This is discussed in Section 3.7. Awareness of BPJS Employment among study respondents remains limited. Individuals who are knowledgeable about BPJS Employment are generally those who, or whose family members, are employed by a company. Respondents are more familiar with BPJS Health since the majority of them utilize this social insurance. During interviews with economically disadvantaged non-beneficiaries, not everyone was aware of the Social Protection programs available in their village. While some recognized programs such as PKH as assistance for impoverished families with school-age children, or the Program Sembako as ‘rice assistance,’ they generally found it challenging to identify who is eligible to receive these. When asked about the criteria for poor families, respondents often mentioned only the category of poor people without providing specific criteria. Non-beneficiaries who are aware that their neighbors receive social assistance often question why they themselves are not receiving the same social assistance, especially when they believe their financial situation is not substantially better than that of the recipients – or possibly even worse. “… they say that if the house is tiled, they won’t get [social] assistance. In fact, there are those who have “… they say the benefit was for families who luxurious houses and work as permanent employees have children in school, but those families but still get assistance.” who received it [PKH] had their children no longer in school.” FGD with non-beneficiaries, in a village in SBB. Non-beneficiaries mentioned that they “If there is Government assistance seldom, if ever, received explanations in our village, information should be from the village government about IDI with a non- disseminated to all residents, even if not the Social Protection programs beneficiary in everyone is eligible to receive it.” implemented in their village. Bengkulu Utara. 32 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Nevertheless, this sentiment does not necessarily translate into respondents feeling compelled to assert their rights with the village government. Fearing potential conflicts within the village community, many respondents viewed topics related to social assistance as taboo subjects which could not be discussed openly in large meetings. When queried about whether they had ever questioned why they did not receive assistance like their neighbors with similar levels of poverty, a non-beneficiary responded. “Well…, perhaps at the moment, I’m The discomfort associated with making inquiries is not fortunate enough to receive it. And I often shaped by a complex interplay of cultural, social, don’t feel comfortable asking the village and organizational factors. In rural areas in Indonesia, head about this.” individuals may hesitate to ask questions owing to behavioral norms that discourage such inquiries IDI with non-beneficiary in SBB. or concerns about being perceived as intrusive or meddlesome. Non-beneficiaries may also find it hard to identify the appropriate person to approach or register with, as the organizational structure of the program lacks clarity. This uncertainty adds an extra layer to the reluctance to seek information. However, despite the prevailing hesitancy among non- “It’s challenging for ordinary folks like beneficiaries, a notable subset have taken the initiative us, sir…; they might think we’re intruding to make specific requests. For example, some individuals into other people’s business too much.” have approached PKH facilitators with appeals to include their names on the list of program recipients, but noted IDI with non-beneficiary, Bengkulu Utara. they remained off the program list. Challenges in conducting outreach and communication in remote areas • With the exception of BPJS Employment, programs generally lack a structured outreach strategy and, particularly, dedicated strategies and resources for outreach to remote areas where greater travel and communication efforts are required. PKH and Program Sembako lack a dedicated outreach strategy to remote areas. In fact, in PKH remote areas are visited less often than non-remote locations. Additionally, Sembako relies on TKSK for communication with villages, encountering significant challenges due to limited resources available. BLT-DD may not necessarily require a dedicated strategy for remote areas, but it may be useful to consider. BPJS Employment has an outreach strategy, but it may not sufficiently account for the constraints posed by limited resources in remote areas and allow staff to prioritize efforts. Without data on program coverage in remote areas, program implementers may not perceive the need for additional specific outreach measures in these locations. • Limited communication and outreach result in weak knowledge of program rules and eligibility criteria by beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries alike. This “communication gap” is compounded by challenges faced by households in requesting additional information. Non-beneficiaries express concerns about clarity of information about who is eligible to receive assistance, citing a lack of clear communication and information. They are also unsure whom to approach, particularly in remote areas where cultural norms discourage inquiries. Residents in remote areas face challenges in accessing information through various channels, particularly when compared to those living in proximity to the district center. This difficulty extends to online searches due to limited internet connectivity. 3.4 Intake Procedures and Processes This section explores the fundamental elements of the intake process, including the procedures to identify and register potential beneficiaries, and the data involved in this process. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 33 PKH and Program Sembako Procedures for identifying and registering beneficiaries. The discussion on program intake for PKH and Program Sembako has a focus on intake into DTKS, as this is the primary intake gateway for PKH and Program Sembako, among other select social assistance programs.69 It is important to note, however, that intake into DTKS is not a guarantee for intake into each program specifically. There is also overlap with the subsequent discussion on Assessment of Needs and Conditions, as these intake processes also involve consideration of households’ poverty status. Maintaining the accuracy of DTKS data is essential to provide an accurate picture of current poverty conditions. Subnational entities, particularly Dinsos and village governments, are responsible for updating DTKS data, as elaborated in Section 2.1.1. These activities involve proposing unregistered poor families for inclusion, removing financially capable ones, and verifying or amending family details, including NIK, addresses, details of family members, and data on deaths and births. The SIKS-NG application, which is accessible online to each village with a reliable internet signal, facilitates this updating process. Most of the Dinsos staff we interviewed were familiar with the regulations and procedures mentioned above, but only a few village governments had a full understanding. As discussed above, this reflects shortcomings in how information is communicated from the central level to the provincial and district levels and, subsequently, to the village government. Implementation of official procedures. Among the six villages visited in this study, only those in Bengkulu Utara adhered to the existing identification procedures. As a result, the subsequent explanation is solely derived from information obtained in this location. It begins with the village head’s request to the head of hamlets (Kadus) or neighborhood units (RT) to identify families considered impoverished but not recorded in the DTKS. Another aspect of the updating process involves identifying families that no longer meet the poverty criteria, to be excluded from the database (see Box 1). Kadus/RTs have the discretion to make these judgments but must consider the families’ circumstances and the degree to which these align with the specified criteria. The assessment of the Kadus / RT relies heavily on their knowledge about the condition of poor families of each hamlet, especially related to factors such as land ownership, employment, the number of dependents, and the presence of school children in the family. Kadus/RTs are only allowed to propose the inclusion of families that possess civil and registration documents, including both an ID card (KTP) and family card (KK) with an address in the respective village.70 Proposals from the Kadus/RT are debated in a village meeting (Musdes), which is facilitated by the village consultative body (Badan Perwakilan Desa - BPD)71 and attended by the village head, village officials, hamlet heads, RT representatives, community leaders, sub-district government representatives, and village facilitators (both the Pendamping Desa and PKH facilitators). We identified several shortcomings in the selection process for proposing or removing individuals from the DTKS. The specific weaknesses include: • Concerns about subjectivity. Kadus/RTs rely heavily on their personal knowledge and observations, rather than conducting an objective assessment using established criteria or relying on supporting documentation. This subjectivity can introduce biases, as they tend to favor families they are acquainted with. There is a lack of transparency in how Kadus/RTs make their nominations, as there is no discussion during village meetings to clarify the selection process. In addition to PKH and Program Sembako, the following programs also use DTKS for eligibility determination: PBI-JKN Subsidized Health Insur- 69 ance; the PIP cash transfer for poor and vulnerable students (Program Indonesia Pintar), and BST Cash Transfer (Bantuan Sosial Tunai). The KTP includes the holder’s identity number, name, date of birth, and address. The KK comprises a list of family members with each mem- 70 ber’s identity number, date of birth, and their relationship to the head of the family. Both the KTP and KK are issued by Dukcapil. 71 The BPD is an institution tasked with executing governmental functions in villages, comprising representatives chosen democratically based on regional representation as outlined in Law No 6/2014 concerning village. Its responsibilities include deliberating and reaching consensus on the draft village regulation in collaboration with the village head, facilitating the expression and channelling of villagers’ aspirations, and overseeing the performance of the village head. 34 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges • Quota per location. In determining which families are to be included or excluded in the DTKS based on the proposed list, the village meeting is constrained by hamlet-specific quotas, resulting in an inability to accept all proposals from Kadus/RTs.72 • Identifying the poorest. Submitting proposals becomes increasingly challenging for the RT when residents’ poverty conditions appear nearly identical. Kadus/RTs must possess detailed information about the livelihood conditions and family responsibilities of their residents. Even with this information, the process remains difficult if there are fewer people eligible for inclusion in the DTKS than can be proposed, and selection from among those eligible can appear arbitrary. • Verification and validation. In remote areas, the verification and validation of this nomination process can be more challenging for Dinsos due to limited access. To date, Dinsos have largely been unable to personally attend the meetings and have depended on Musdes Minutes as a validation tool for the updating process conducted in the village. Challenges encountered during the updating process. Among the study locations, it was evident that Musdes were not always held for the purpose of updating DTKS data: only two villages in Bengkulu Utara organized village meetings to discuss their proposed updates, while the remaining four villages did not. Several factors contribute to the absence of data updates: Use of the SIKS-NG application. Some villages are unable to use the SIKS-NG application to update the database. To uphold data confidentiality and security, the SIKS-NG application is protected, requiring a user account to gain access. Not all the villages designated to perform this updating process possess user accounts. Based on information from Dinsos SBB, just eight out of the 92 villages in this district presently hold SIKS-NG user accounts and so can perform these updates. All eight villages with user accounts are in proximity to the district center, as Dinsos believes these villages are better equipped for the task. This decision is influenced by the fact that updating DTKS demands a reliable internet connection, a major challenge in remote locations. Lack of awareness about DTKS and the need to update it. Some of the village government staff in the remote villages visited in this study (in Donggala and SBB) do not know about the existence of DTKS and the SIKS-NG application, and do not have an operator to manage SIKS-NG. This can be attributed to the village not being granted a user account, which underscores the limited information flow to the village government in this remote location, as discussed in Section 3.3 above. Inadequate internet connectivity. This stands out as a significant challenge in remote areas, encountered in the study villages in both Donggala and SBB. Updating data during village meetings requires a stable internet connection to access the SIKS-NG and retrieve information regarding impoverished families registered with the DTKS. Any discussions related to data modifications must rely on the DTKS’s list of impoverished families, and these data are only accessible online, with no option for offline uploads. Limited budget for verification and validation. Dinsos “We input data into DTKS last month, faces budget constraints for verifying updated data from and on each day, we could only enter village governments. This challenge is more prominent data for three families. If we had to input in SBB, which includes islands, making village outreach over 100 names, it would be a very time-particularly time-consuming and costly. Dinsos SBB consuming task indeed.” has allocated only IDR 45 million (US$2,830) for data updates. Many villages in SBB also suffer from poor Interview with SIKS-NG operator in a internet connections, necessitating manual data updates. village in Bengkulu Utara. Collecting these manual data and inputting them into the SIKS-NG app has become a burden for the Dinsos, leading to reduced pressure on village governments to update DTKS data. The existence of quotas in two villages in Bengkulu Utara emerged when the Musdes were carried out. Musdes for DTKS updates are carried 72 out together with Musdes for the determination of BLT-DD recipients. Families proposed for BLT DD are also proposed to be included in the DTKS. For BLT-DD, there is a limit on village funds allocation for BLT-DD benefit, so village government set recipient quota for each hamlet. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 35 Concern about conflict. Dinsos SBB noted that conducting village meetings to update poverty data can give rise to jealousy and tensions among residents. In response, the village government tends to avoid this process to prevent potential blame if residents express dissatisfaction with the data and decisions concerning program beneficiaries. Data synchronization at predefined schedule. Villages are only able to upload Musdes results during the designated period set by the Dinsos. When the portal is open, the village operator will receive information from Dinsos. In the absence of an open portal, no data can be uploaded into SIKS NG. In remote areas with weak signal conditions, data entry may extend beyond the normal operating hours of the SIKS-NG portal. Villages in these remote locations experience frustration as they frequently encounter difficulties adhering to this updating schedule. “We need to enter the data into SIKS-NG online and then upload the data when the connection is at its best – that is, when the system functions optimally. Additionally, we must upload them simultaneously, not individually, as it may be questioned for non-compliance with the Musdes Minutes.” Interview with SIKS-NG operator in a village in Bengkulu Utara. Issues with NIK and KK. Some of the families recommended for inclusion in the DTKS were found not to be recorded in the system, despite having obtained the official KK and ID cards after processing them at Dukcapil. During data collection, the village head claimed suspected that the reason for this is may be because not all NIKs and KKs have been digitally registered by Dukcapil into the population and civil registration information system (Sistem Informasi Administrasi Kependudukan - SIAK). In these circumstances, the family name and NIK cannot be inputted to SIKS-NG. It is recommended that the reasons for the mismatch and lack of recording recommended families into DTKS be assessed further. In SBB, a district with limited village data updating, Dinsos acknowledged that most of the existing DTKS records are outdated, mostly dating from 2018. Two villages visited in SBB do not possess user accounts and have never used the SIKS-NG application. By contrast, in Bengkulu Utara various initiatives have been introduced to facilitate the updating of DTKS by villages. These include: • Initiating the digitization of SIKS-NG in the villages, abbreviated as DISIKMASA. This program is designed to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the DTKS updating process. • Collaborating with Dinas PMD to request operational funding from village funds to provide honoraria or incentives for village SIKS-NG operators. • Dinsos has also organized training sessions for village operators to familiarize them with the operation of the SIKS-NG application and allocated each village a user account. • Coordinating with regional leaders to issue a circular letter to encourage village governments to conduct Musdes for updating the DTKS. • Collaborating with the Communications and Information Office (Dinas Kominfo) and regional leaders to expedite the installation of telecommunication towers in areas with poor network coverage. Despite this support from the district government, including training on how to use the SIKS-NG, not all villages in Bengkulu Utara have conducted village meetings for data updates. According to Dinsos in Bengkulu Utara, 29 percent of the 220 villages in the district had not organized a Musdes to update the DTKS. Dinsos was unable to obtain an explanation from the villages that did not conduct an update. However, the two villages that provided explanations stated that they did not update the data because they believed their residents currently registered in the DTKS were still eligible, and thus, no data needed 36 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges updating. Dinsos noted that they do not have the mandate to enforce regular updates in villages. Two villages in Bengkulu Utara expressed dissatisfaction with the limited impact of their efforts to update DTKS, reporting that while some changes have occurred, the majority of recommended changes have not been acted on. They continue to identify families in dire need of assistance who were proposed for inclusion in DTKS the previous year but have not received any social support. Conversely, some families previously recommended for removal from the DTKS still receive assistance. The villages do not understand what processes are followed at the central level following their data updates. Non-beneficiary efforts to register into DTKS. As highlighted in Section 3.3, the majority of non- “We have been diligently working to update the DTKS data. However, after uploading the new data into SIKS-NG, it seems that some of the beneficiaries did not align with our proposals. It feels as though our efforts are in vain.” Interview with SIKS-NG operator in a village in Bengkulu Utara. beneficiaries are not aware of the process for registering to obtain access to social assistance. They are often unaware of the existence of the Cek Bansos application, and while a few non-beneficiaries may have heard about it, they have not attempted to utilize it. Some have approached beneficiaries for information, and one received a response: “I received it directly, not through personal registration. The village handled all the procedures, so if someone didn’t receive the assistance, well, you just have to accept it like that.” FGD with non-beneficiaries in SBB. In an encouraging development, as of 2021 MoSA has expanded data interoperability between DTKS and a variety of other databases, although currently this is still in the very early stages of developing more robust interoperability systems. According to interviews with Dinsos in all study locations, as well as with Pusdatin, this initiative commenced with the integration of the DTKS with NIK data from the SIAK (managed by Dukcapil). Currently, DTKS also interfaces with the Basic Education Database (Data Pokok Pendidikan – Dapodik), BPJS Employment data, and other databases. The connections between DTKS and other databases serve a crucial role in data verification and validation, ensuring the ongoing eligibility verification of beneficiaries. As an illustration, elderly recipients of PKH who pass away are automatically excluded from DTKS when their death certificate is issued by Dukcapil, while the integration with Dapodik73 data plays a crucial role in verifying the compliance of PKH beneficiaries with education conditions. While this integration of administrative datasets is necessary and positive, there are also some attendant risks. There have been instances where the integration of DTKS with other databases resulted in families being removed from the DTKS and deemed ineligible for Social Protection programs, as illustrated in 1 below. Dapodik is a database comprising primary and secondary education units utilized for education planning, assistance, and evaluation. It is man- 73 datory for every Indonesian school, including its teachers and students, both domestically and internationally, to be registered in Dapodik. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 37 Box 1 Cases where families were excluded by the system Several anecdotal accounts from villages reflected Dinsos’ concerns that data exchange between DTKS and other data sources led to the exclusion of several families from DTKS. The following are two examples of such cases. • A nephew resides with a financially disadvantaged family, recognized as a PKH recipient. This nephew is documented as one of the family members in the impoverished family’s Family Card (KK). After a few months, the nephew secured a job at a company, earning a salary slightly exceeding the minimum wage. The company also enrolled the nephew in BPJS Employment. Shortly thereafter, the economically struggling family, with whom the nephew resides, received notification that they were no longer included in the list of PKH beneficiaries. Following an investigation, it was revealed that they were removed from DTKS because one of the family members was considered to have a consistent income adequate to meet household needs. • A child from an economically disadvantaged family received PKH during elementary and middle school. However, the assistance abruptly ceased when the child entered high school. The family, puzzled by this change, inquired with the PKH facilitator. Upon investigation, it was revealed that the child attended a private high school, which was not recorded in Dapodik. Consequently, the child was deemed no longer enrolled in school, and the corresponding (conditional) benefits from PKH were not calculated for him. The information provided stems from the insights of program implementers at the sub-national level, and while the likelihood is affirmed by those at the national level, further investigation is recommended to substantiate these findings. BLT-DD Procedure for identifying and registering beneficiaries. In general, the enrollment and registration process for the BLT-DD program is a smooth one, as it is wholly managed by the village government, which is co-located with the beneficiaries in the same area. As such, there are no particular concerns regarding remote areas. As previously mentioned, there are three national regulations that provide the basis for the village government to determine the recipients of the BLT-DD program: basically, these emphasize that this social assistance is for the poor, families having members with health issues or disabilities, and those who have lost their jobs due to the COVID-19 pandemic but have not received social assistance from other programs (not being recipients of PKH, Program Sembako, or the pre-employment program). Villages can use databases associated with impoverished households, specifically DTKS and/or P3KE, or choose other poor families outside those recorded in DTKS and/or P3KE74 to identify eligible recipients. The number of beneficiaries is determined by the allocation of village funds for each village. When BLT- DD began operating in 2020, 40 percent of the village funds were allocated for BLT DD. However, by 2023, only 10-25 percent of the village funds could be designated for BLT-DD. Implementation of official procedures. In a departure from the DTKS update process, all the study villages visited in these three districts conducted Musdes meetings to determine the recipients of BLT-DD. These village meetings are essential since the Musdes Minutes for identifying BLT-DD beneficiaries are required for the village government to access village funds. As stipulated in the regulation on BLT-DD: ‘In the absence of available data on poor families, the village government may use the following 74 criteria: a) families that have lost their livelihood, b) presence of family members prone to illness or chronic illness, and/or with a disability, c) non-recipients of any social assistance program, and d) households with a single elderly household member.’ 38 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Variation in implementing procedures. In the six study villages, the selection of beneficiaries was primarily based on Kadus/RT assessments of the local population’s circumstances, which were then presented at Musdes. During interviews with the village, various challenges emerged in the implementation of the BLT- DD intake process, including: • As with updating DTKS, subjectivity is a concern in the identification and selection process, with Kadus/RTs relying heavily on personal knowledge and observations instead of conducting an objective assessment. • Poverty criteria are unsuitable for the local context. In 2023, the Dinas PMD encouraged village governments to use P3KE data. However, not all villages adhered to this directive. For instance, one village in Donggala persisted in using data recommended by Kadus/RT because, in the village’s opinion, the P3KE data were not suitable as a reference for BLT-DD. The village noted that, for example, according to the P3KE poverty criteria, families owning motorbikes were ineligible for BLT-DD: but in this location, motorbikes were considered essential for transportation, not a luxury. “… because if you look at economic Kadus/RT members made their selections based on situation, it’s mostly similar in our observations of housing conditions, employment, and village. If you follow the existing their estimation of family income (based on the type criteria, maybe only one or two of livelihood). Additional criteria such as ‘not having a people will get it, but the funds must place to live’ and ‘eating only one meal a day’ do not be distributed because they have align with the living conditions in this village, where been allocated by the Government...” there are no residents facing such extreme poverty. • In contrast, Dinas PMD in Bengkulu Utara did not request villages to utilize P3KE data. As a result, the villages concentrated on delivering BLT-DD to disadvantaged families who had not previously received social assistance from central “… the BLT-DD implementation has been greatly government. The poverty criteria beneficial to us as a part of the village government… employed by the villages closely mirrored the PKH and Program Sembako do not accurately those used in the DTKS updates, with the reach their intended recipients.” addition of locally agreed-upon factors, particularly those linked to agricultural Interview with head of hamlet in Bengkulu Utara. land ownership (see Box 1). • The need to utilize the full budget allocation. According to the Dinas PMD in Bengkulu Utara, the criteria to allocate 10-25 percent of village funds for BLT-DD proves challenging. Not all villages have a sufficient number of impoverished families who have not received any Government assistance, as many of them have already received PKH or Program Sembako. Meanwhile, to utilize village funds for other purposes, villages are required to distribute BLT-DD at a predetermined percentage. BPJS Employment To extend BPJS Employment membership coverage in rural areas to encompass non-wage earners and informal sectors, the BPJS Employment office collaborates with district governments. In Bengkulu Utara, this partnership was set to commence at the end of 2023, registering 1,000 informal and rural sector workers as participants. Upon receiving local legislative approval, the district government was to cover contributions for these participants for three months. Meanwhile, in Donggala, one approach to broaden participation at the village level involves collaboration with the Dinas PMD to establish a district government regulation, outlining participation obligations for village government staff in BPJS Employment. The village budget allocates funds to cover the initial contributions for 50 new participants for a period of three months. Collaborating with the district government to subsidize contributions for informal workers for several months has succeeded in boosting the number of participants in the informal sector, including those in rural areas. However, this initiative has not been accompanied by an increase in awareness among subsidized informal sector workers of the need to continue contributing to JKK and JKM when the subsidies Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 39 are no longer provided by the district government. Consequently, many rural informal workers’ accounts remain inactive. Another approach employed to attract informal workers in rural areas involves Perisai agents, who are BPJS Employment agents operating in various areas tasked with enlisting new participants into the BPJS Employment program. These Perisai agents receive acquisition incentives for successfully enrolling new participants. Additionally, there are outreach efforts to introduce BPJS Employment to rural informal workers. As a result of these strategies, there has been a notable increase in BPJS Employment participation among non-wage earners in these two districts. In Bengkulu Utara, the participant count is expected to rise significantly from 2,464 individuals in 2022 to 6,216 in 2023. Meanwhile, in Donggala, more than half of the BPJS Employment participants are non-wage earners, accounting for 6,700 individuals out of a total of 12,700 BPJS Employment participants in this district. Despite the various efforts made by the BPJS Employment Office, there were gaps in reaching the study villages. One of the villages in Donggala received information and education about BPJS Employment; but in other areas, no villages had received such information. In both study villages in Bengkulu Utara, FGD participants mentioned that they had come across BPJS Employment through television advertisements. However, their understanding was that BPJS primarily provided protection for employees in formal companies. Some village residents had become BPJS Employment participants due to their employment in plantation companies, but they were unaware of BPJS Employment’s coverage for informal workers in rural areas. As per BPJS Employment staff, the primary challenges in enticing informal sector participants in rural areas to join BPJS Employment are: • Geographical limitations. Reaching remote villages poses a significant challenge, given the limited number of BPJS Employment branch office personnel. For instance, Bengkulu Utara is an extensive area, but has only four staff in the BPJS Employment office responsible for two districts, which means that it is not yet feasible to conduct outreach to remote villages. • Awareness. Village governments are not aware of the importance of social security for their residents, which hinders effective coordination. Residents also lack knowledge about social security, causing them to prioritize other aspects of their daily lives over participating in social security programs that require contributions. In general, FGD participants (both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries) considered the BPJS Employment insurance contributions of IDR 30,000 (or US$ 1.89) per month to be affordable or at least manageable considering the benefit from the program. This was the response after participants were introduced to the program and its benefits. “For farmers like us, the monthly fee of IDR30,000 (US$1.89) per month is stillHowever, some other affordable and can be pursued. My husband works as a coconut tree climber, participants expressed that this contribution so the risk is great. I think the fee is affordable when considering the benefits that can be obtained.” is not affordable due to the irregular nature FGD with non-beneficiaries in Donggala. of their income. “The monthly contribution of IDR30,000 (US$1.89) FGD with non-beneficiaries, SBB. is a substantial amount for us in this village since our income is not fixed. But we might consider ““The money we get is only enough for daily pursuing it because of its benefits.” needs. Our income comes once every 2-3 months, sometimes even once every 6 months. Paying IDR FGD with beneficiaries in Bengkulu Utara. 30,000 (US$1.89) per month for insurance is still very hard for us.” 40 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Challenges with Social Protection program intake in remote areas • Social assistance intake in remote areas is constrained by: A supply-driven approach that relies on village governments and local program implementers to identify and enroll prospective beneficiaries. Concerns about subjectivity in the decision-making process by village leaders on who is eligible. Limited awareness among potentially eligible households about intake procedures. • In remote areas, only a limited number of villages follow the existing procedures to identify beneficiaries and subsequently register them in the DTKS database. Villages in remote areas do not have enough information regarding intake procedures and the need for DTKS updates, with Dinsos prioritizing villages near the district center for the updating process. The primary constraint in remote areas is the need for an internet connection to access the SIKS- NG application to update the DTKS. The challenge with connectivity is exacerbated as data synchronization is limited to a predetermined schedule, which often does not align with the unreliable availability of internet connection in remote villages. In some locations, DTKS data is outdated and therefore of limited use for intake decision making. Broadly, Dinsos faces limitations in conducting the verification and validation of updated data. In remote locations, it appears that this process is virtually non-existent. The utilization of ‘cek-bansos’ by non-beneficiaries in remote locations is still highly limited, primarily because they are unfamiliar with relevant information. Again, the challenge of limited information in remote areas hinders the effective use of this tool. • While there are no major issues concerning BLT-DD intake in remote areas, the approach is supply- driven and subject to concerns about subjectivity in intake decisions. The challenges mentioned earlier are suspected to be applicable to all locations. • Meanwhile, the primary challenges in implementing BPJS Employment is the constrained resources to register participants in rural areas, primarily due to geographical challenges; and a lack of awareness about the importance of BPJS enrollment among non-salaried and informal sector workers, who are prevalent in remote areas. 3.5 Assessment of Household Needs and Conditions PKH and Program Sembako Many of the challenges related to intake for PKH and Sembako are also applicable to assessment of household needs and conditions, as these programs rely on DTKS data to assess households and determine associated benefit packages appropriate to their needs and conditions. Primary among those challenges is the homogenous socioeconomic conditions among poor households in remote areas (see Box 1). As noted previously, Kadus/RTs face challenges to submit proposals given that household poverty conditions appear nearly identical. Additionally, outdated DTKS records, such as those mentioned by officials in SBB district in the previous section of this report, hinder the effective assessment of current household needs and conditions, as the household situations have likely changed. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 41 Box 2 Applying poverty criteria to update DTKS data When updating DTKS, Dinsos requests that village governments adhere to the criteria for identifying impoverished households outlined in MoSA Decree No. 146/HUK/2013. This decree specifies the criteria for identifying those in poverty who should be registered: • Household lacks a reliable source of income and/or insufficient means to meet necessities. • Only able to provide education for children up to secondary level. • Housing with walls constructed from bamboo or wood, or in poor condition. • Housing with floors made of earth, wood, cement, or ceramic in subpar condition. • Housing with roof materials composed of palm fiber, thatch, tile, zinc, or asbestos, or in poor condition. • House lighting without an electricity source or without an electricity meter. • Living space in house is less than eight square meters per person. • Reliance on unprotected sources for drinking water such as wells, springs, rivers, rainwater, or other non-purified sources. • The majority of household expenses are dedicated to very basic food consumption. • Inability to afford or encountering difficulties when seeking medical treatment from healthcare professionals, except at community health centers or government-subsidized facilities. • Unable to purchase clothing for each household member at least once a year. The village government attempted to apply these criteria; however, as observed in Bengkulu Utara, they proved unsuitable to accurately identify impoverished families eligible for inclusion in the DTKS program. For instance, in the remote hamlets of the two study villages, most houses consist of wooden structures, some with dirt floors covered in plastic, and nearly all rely on wells for their drinking water (see some examples in the pictures above). In this locality, these characteristics do not effectively distinguish between financially disadvantaged families and those with more resources. Consequently, the village introduced supplementary criteria for assessing family income. Given the reliance on agricultural livelihoods in Bengkulu Utara, these additional criteria related to the ownership of plantations and their yields, including: • Own agricultural land that generates enough income to cover daily living expenses and the educational needs of Note: These images illustrate homes of their children (ineligible for social assistance). economically disadvantaged households seen during the study in Bengkulu Utara, displaying a • Own agricultural land with subpar or insufficient yields noticeable resemblance to each other. (eligible for social assistance). • Do not possess agricultural land and have a low to moderate income (eligible for assistance). • Do not possess agricultural land but employed by a company with a stable monthly income (ineligible for assistance). Although these criteria tend to be subjective because there are no measurable indicators, the village government deems them more appropriate for determining whether specific families are eligible to receive assistance or should be removed from the list of recipients due to their perceived self- sufficiency. 42 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Beyond these issues, there is limited local-level assessment of program implementation in rural areas, particularly related to assessment of household needs and conditions. While subnational governments have not conducted specific assessments or evaluations on the implementation of PKH and the Program Sembako, the central government has undertaken this task. The assessments from the central government have resulted in various changes to these programs, most notably, the introduction of a special PKH Akses category for remote areas. However, the assessment primarily focused on overall program procedures and lacked specific considerations of remote areas. Furthermore, since 2018 no further reviews have been conducted to assess PKH Akses implementation in the field, and as such, the program has not evolved since its introduction. BLT-DD No studies exist regarding the execution of BLT-DD. However, at the village level, program implementers are actively evaluating how to carry out BLT-DD distribution without causing community tensions. For instance, in Bengkulu Utara and SBB, local policies sought to ensure that every poor family receives BLT- DD. This may involve distributing it equally among families who have received it but are no longer eligible or revoking BLT-DD assistance for families that have already received social assistance from the central government. As previously mentioned, the village has also established additional criteria to assess the poverty conditions of its residents for proposing recipients of BLT-DD. These criteria were developed because the criteria set by MoV were deemed unsuitable for the village community. BPJS Employment Even though there are no specific studies on program implementation in remote areas, there are ongoing policy and strategy evaluations related to expanding BPJS Employment coverage for the informal sector, conducted by the BPJS Employment Head Office. According to a staff member from the BPJS Employment Deputy for Planning, these internal studies have informed program planning. One of the findings of these evaluations is the disparity in human resources between Java and regions outside Java. Previously, Java had reached 100 percent or even 105 percent of staffing requirements, whereas outside Java, staffing was still around 70 percent of the required levels. Efforts have been made to address this issue by initiating placements in the remote regions of Indonesia for a two-year period. However, as expressed by branch offices in this study area, staffing shortages remain a challenge when it comes to reaching potential informal sector participants in rural and remote areas. Challenges with conducting assessment Challenges with conducting assessment of of needs needs and conditions in remote and conditions in remote areas areas • Assessment of needs and conditions in remote areas is hindered by several factors. These include homogeneous • Assessment of needs poverty conditions, and of a lack conditions remote-area specificareas in remote is hindered variables to assessby several factors. household These conditions in include remote contexts, and homogeneous poverty conditions, a lack of remote-area specific variables to assess household conditions outdated DTKS data, limiting the ability to tailor program responses appropriate to household needs and conditions. in remote contexts, and outdated DTKS data, limiting the ability to tailor program responses appropriate • Recent program to household changes needs have been implemented universally across all locations, without distinction for remote areas. and conditions. For all four programs current evaluation practice is aimed at enhancing implementation. This focuses primarily on • programchanges Recent program general have procedures been and implemented lacks universally across specific considerations all locations, areas. without distinction for for remote remote areas. For all four programs current evaluation practice is aimed at enhancing implementation. • Despite the primarily This focuses initiative on adapt PKH to general programto remote areas, procedures and PKH Akses lacks has specific not evolved since considerations its introduction. for remote areas. Previous assessments resulted in the formulation of policies related to PKH Akses, addressing the needs in challenging areas • Despite the initiative and influencing to procedures specific adapt PKH to forremote areas, However, this context. PKH Akses not evolved has 2018 since since no further its introduction. reviews have been conducted to Previous assessments resulted assess developments in the field. in the formulation of policies related to PKH Akses, addressing the needs in challenging areas and influencing specific procedures for this context. However, since 2018 no further • BPJS also reviews lacks have a dedicated been conducted assessment for remote areas: to assess developments in the however, field. routine internal evaluations have yielded key strategies to broaden coverage in rural areas. These include collaborating with Perisai agents and ensuring a more • BPJS also lacks equitable a dedicated distribution assessment of resources to areasfor beyond remoteJava. areas: however, routine internal evaluations have yielded key strategies to broaden coverage in rural areas. These include collaborating with Perisai agents and ensuring a more equitable distribution of resources to areas beyond Java. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 43 3.6 Uptake Capacity Human resources To support program implementation at the subnational level, PKH benefits from a relatively robust pool of human resources compared to other social assistance programs. PKH boasts approximately 40,000 coordinators and facilitators who are positioned at provincial, district, sub-district, and village levels across Indonesia. Despite this, PKH facilitators stated that there is a noticeable shortfall in the number of facilitators in the study locations, especially in hard-to-reach areas. For instance, in one of the sub-districts within the study area, there are just two PKH facilitators, each responsible for four villages. The road conditions that these PKH facilitators must navigate are deemed challenging due to their poor state, hilly terrain, and the added difficulty of traveling during rainy periods. The area also grapples with weak internet signals, further complicating coordination efforts. In Bengkulu Utara, PKH facilitators are each assigned to a single village: but the villages they serve cover very large areas, with significant distances between hamlets (necessitating 2-3 hours of travel from the village center to the hamlet or between hamlets). In another village, the village area encompasses more than half of the sub-district’s territory. Program Sembako currently lacks external support implementers, relying solely on district government staff. This creates challenges in obtaining a comprehensive overview of the program’s implementation at the district level, as Government staff may have competing priorities aligned with the policies of their respective regional leaders. Dinsos also depends on TKSK, who are also limited in number, and thus unable to fully resolve the issue. When implementing BLT-DD, village facilitators are assigned to each sub-district. They may face challenges when the sub-district they are responsible for has a high number of villages to cover. Finally, for BPJS Employment the number of staff in locations outside Java is still insufficient, covering an estimated average of only 70 percent of its needs. During interviews with the BPJS Employment Office in Bengkulu Utara and Donggala, concerns were raised regarding limited human resources for outreach efforts in remote villages. The BPJS Employment office in Bengkulu Utara operates with only four staff, covering two extensive districts. The staff primarily handle administrative tasks, making it challenging to conduct outreach to villages. Perisai agents who support this office are not yet present in all villages. Staff members are capable of providing information about the employment insurance programs to villages, but due to human resource constraints, this activity has not been fully realized in Bengkulu Utara. In Donggala, on the other hand, BPJS Employment employs a team of five individuals, aided by 15 Perisai agents spread across the Donggala area, and claims that it has met its targets for absorption capacity. Except for the finance department, all branch office staff members are engaged in program implementation in remote locations. Staff are required to spend four days a week in the field, conducting monitoring, recruiting new participants, and obtaining updates from existing participants. Donggala’s geographical layout, divided by the sea, necessitates traveling around via Palu City to access various areas. Despite these challenges, the BPJS Employment office in Donggala has managed to reach 12,700 active wage earners (PU) and non-wage earners (BPU) participants, with the potential for further growth by the end of the year. Overall, human resources appear to be very stretched in remote areas, constraints by accessibility issues and long distances. Furthermore, the fragmented approach to deploying human resources to monitor Social Protection delivery, also points to the absence of a household-level approach to beneficiary monitoring that considers all the benefits and services a household receives, and how a family’s poverty and socioeconomic constraints can be addressed at a holistic level through household-level monitoring. 44 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Budget allocation The budget allocated to the Dinsos is seen as inadequate to effectively implement and monitor the national Social Protection programs, which means staff can only infrequently visit remote locations in the district. The SBB Dinsos noted that their annual budget is typically around IDR 45 million (US$2,889.40) for various purposes, including funds for verification visits, training on updating data and creating user IDs to access SIKS-NG application in each village scattered in several islands in SBB District. Only in 2023, did they receive a more substantial budget of IDR 200 million (US$12,841.80), which they anticipated would enhance their capacity to implement both PKH and Program Sembako. PKH facilitators also expressed dissatisfaction with the operational budget available to them, as the additional incentive they receive for working in the PKH Akses area is only IDR 600,000 (US$38.53) per month. In SBB, facilitators find that the incentives they receive are inadequate to cover the costs of reaching many villages, given the considerable transportation costs involved in visiting villages located on small islands. No major issues related to budget were identified in the implementation of BLT-DD, as it was entirely managed by the village authorities. Within the Dinas PMD, one unit in the Dinas is responsible for offering technical support: no budget is allocated for carrying out these functions. The Dinas PMD does not have a supervisory role, and therefore, there are no expenses associated with field visits. Other facilities and infrastructure Beyond challenges associated with human resources and funding, there are further constraints linked to the conditions in remote areas, including poor infrastructure, restricted mobility facilities, subpar internet connectivity, and a lack of essential services. As mentioned in previous sections, poor transportation infrastructure is a significant impediment in restricting program implementers from reaching remote and challenging areas. Some Dinsos lack official vehicles to visit remote and challenging locations, a concern that has also been voiced by PKH facilitators. In the study locations, each of the three Dinsos possesses at least one official car primarily used by the Head of the Dinas, with some other staff members relying on official motorbikes. From the perspective of beneficiaries, accessing funds is a formidable challenge when there are no bank agents or post offices in their villages. ofuptake Challengesof Challenges uptakecapacity capacity inremote in remoteareas areas • • A limited A number of limited number human resources of human is available resources is to reach available to reach remote remote areas areas which which are challenging to are challenging access. to access. There is a notable shortage of PKH facilitators in hard-to-reach areas, leading some to cover a substantial number of ofthat villages number are considerable villages distances that are considerable apart. apart. distances Program Sembako lacks external support, relying solely on district government staff, which presents challenges in overseeing implementation challenges in due to competing overseeing implementation due topriorities. competingMoreover, depending priorities. Moreover, ondepending TKSK does on not resolve the issue, TKSK as their does notnumbers resolve the also limited. are issue, This as their results numbers in infrequent are visits also limited. Thisto villages results in remote locations. in infrequent visits to villages in For BPJSlocations. remote Employment outside Java, staff numbers are still insufficient, meeting only around 70 percent of estimated needs. For BPJS Employment outside Java, staff numbers are still insufficient, meeting only around 70 percent of estimated needs. • Limited operational budgets impede the implementation of activities in remote areas. • Limited operational Dinsos’ restrictedbudgets budget impede the allocation implementation for implementing andof activities in remote monitoring areas. programs, PKH and Program two national Sembako, results in Dinsos’ restricted very limited budget visits allocation forto remote areas. implementing and monitoring two national programs, PKH and also Sembako, Program This very limitedand results in verification leads to infrequent visits to remote validation areas. in remote locations for updating DTKS. activities   This also Even leads though to infrequent PKH verification facilitators receive and validation supplementary activities incentives inAkses for remote locations areas, for updating the amount DTKS. does not cover the expenses Even thoughassociated with reaching PKH facilitators receivevillage locations, particularly supplementary incentives forin Akses remote island areas, areas. the amount does not cover the expenses associated with reaching village locations, particularly in remote island areas. • Regarding other facilities, there are further challenges in remote areas or reaching such areas. These include inadequate • Regarding other infrastructure, facilities, limited are further therefacilities, mobility challenges poor in remote areas internet connectivity, andora reaching such areas. lack of essential These include services. inadequate infrastructure, limited mobility facilities, poor internet connectivity, and a lack of essential services. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 45 3.7 Benefit Delivery PKH and Program Sembako PKH and Program Sembako deliver benefits according to the programs’ regulations, which involve Himbara banks and post offices. This approach is the same for all areas, including for remote villages, where cash transfers are disbursed quarterly in four tranches.75 Previous program assessments in 2018 and 2021 identified several payment related issues generally affecting benefit delivery of these programs. These challenges included the non-distribution of KKS debit cards by the Himbara banks due to name discrepancies with the recipient’s KTP, mismatched NIKs, or cards not being distributed because the recipient’s family cannot be located. Issues such as blocked KKS PINs, a lack of confidence in entering the PIN number, and lost cards have further complicated matters for beneficiary families, requiring them to seek assistance from program facilitators.76 Prior to 2023, the monitoring and evaluation of Program Sembako raised concerns about the utilization of Program Sembako benefits, which were designated for purchasing food and could not be disbursed in cash. It was found that, in practice, Program Sembako benefits were distributed in the form of food packages determined by e-warungs or (in certain regions) appointed Program Sembako suppliers. Beneficiaries expressed concerns that the value of the packages may not have aligned with the actual total amount of the benefit. There were also concerns related to the quality of the provided food. Despite regulations allowing beneficiaries to choose where to use their benefits and what type of food to purchase, there have been instances in various regions where the distribution practices deviated from these regulations.77 There were still some beneficiaries who lacked the freedom to choose where they shop for food or decide on the type of food to purchase.78 In light of the above findings, a policy change was initiated from 2023, whereby Program Sembako funds can be withdrawn as cash, allowing beneficiaries to spend them on food according to their needs. In addition, new beneficiaries of the program will no longer receive funds via Himbara bank transfers; instead, all cash will be distributed through the post office. This transition to distributing funds through the post office in 2023 has posed challenges for residents in the remote villages and hamlets participating in this study. The post office has limited visitation options in each village during distribution stages. Moreover, the distribution data arrives in batches from MoSA, meaning beneficiaries not included in the earlier data must personally collect their funds at the post office, which is typically situated in the district center. This, inevitably, results in increased waiting times and transportation costs for the beneficiaries. This obstacle was identified in another study conducted by the World Bank, where beneficiaries expressed reduced satisfaction when the payment method shifted from a bank to a post office.79 Village and PKH facilitators play a crucial role in communicating the payment schedule from the post office so that beneficiaries can access and utilize them as intended. At the beginning of a tranche, PKH facilitators typically receive the beneficiary list, including names and fund amounts, from MoSA. The village head also receives this information, sometimes through a letter or a WhatsApp message with an Excel file detailing beneficiaries and fund amounts. The PKH facilitator and village head notify each listed beneficiary about the payment schedule. However, some beneficiaries may be missed in this process. For 75 Prior to 2023, Program Sembako funds were distributed monthly, but since 2023, they have been disbursed once every three months in all study areas. 76 World Bank (2023) Early Experiences of Beneficiary Choice in Government-to-Person Payment Architecture in Indonesia. World Bank, Washing- ton DC. M&E Findings from 2018 to 2021 by Non-Cash Social Assistance Control Team, coordinated by Ministry of Human Empowerment and Culture. 77 TP2S Setwapres RI (draft report, unpublished) Evaluasi Bantuan Sembako 2022. 78 79 World Bank (2023) Early Experiences of Beneficiary Choice in Government-to-Person Payment Architecture in Indonesia. World Bank, Washing- ton DC. 46 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges remote areas, this method of notification from the post office may not be delivered to all beneficiaries due to limited communication connectivity. ““I was unaware of the fund distribution that day, until Typically, beneficiaries in study villages, my son mentioned a crowd at the village office. It turned especially in Bengkulu Utara and Donggala, withdraw their benefits from out they were distributing assistance funds. I had to hurry there; otherwise, my funds wouldn’t be disbursed.” the nearest bank agent within their village or a nearby village. Bank agents FGD with beneficiaries in SBB. are available in both villages and remote hamlets. While most beneficiaries use bank agents, a few who were enrolled in the program in early 2023 receive funds from the post office. In one Bengkulu Utara village, the post office is close to the village center, but beneficiaries from the furthest hamlet take almost two hours to reach it. ““The other beneficiary collects her benefits at the bank Meanwhile in remote villages in SBB, agent. Meanwhile I have to collect mine at the post office. the majority of transfers to beneficiaries I just received this program this year. Every visit to the have now shifted from the bank to the post office consumes more than two hours of our time. post office. The local post office offers Last time, my husband and I had to wait all day because direct services by visiting the villages. the queue was very long. We were forced to spend more However, in one delivery round, the money to have lunch there.” post office did not receive the complete list of recipients from MoSA in one IDI with beneficiaries, Bengkulu Utara. communication, but in multiple stages. This was a challenge as the post office only has the capacity to come to the villages once for each tranche. If the post office receives an additional list of recipients after cash has been distributed to the villages, these additional recipients must visit the post office directly to collect their benefits. The post office is usually located in the district center, which can pose difficulties for recipients from remote areas. Additionally, the post office frequently visits a single village to serve multiple neighboring villages at the same time. When the list of names is extensive, this results in lengthy queues. Table 8 Advantages and disadvantages of bank and post office payment delivery in remote areas Bank/Agent Bank Post Office • Bank agents are accesible at various • Only need to present KTP and KK (identity documents). locations, allowing beneficiaries • If local post offices offer benefit delivery services to the village level at a to choose the one nearest to their predetermined time, this reduces the need for KPMs to travel to sub- residence. district cities to collect their benefit. • Beneficiaries have the fleibility to ADVANTAGE select the disbursement time. • Makes it possible to avoid long queues. • Himbara banks have offline Electronic Draft Capture (EDC) capacity where pin codes/card data are locally stored, allowing for payments without internet and electricity • Difficulty to replace lost KKS cards, as • Transportation expenses for beneficiaries, especially those from remote this requires handling by the bank’s villages, as the nearest post office can be one to four hours away. Head Office. • Scheduling constraints require beneficiaries to adhere to specific • Insufficient availability of bank disbursement schedules. DISADVANTAGE agents in some villages, requiring • Lengthy queues can extend throughout the day. beneficiaries to travel to other villages to collect PKH or Program • Beneficiaries do not get disbursement notifications beforehand and thus Sembako benefits. sometimes miss the opportunity to collect their benefit at the specified time. Notification does not reach all beneficiaries due to signal constraints or road access constraints for remote villages. • Even if the post office provides services at the village level, beneficiaries who are unavailable during this service still need to travel to the nearest post office which is usually located far from remote villages. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 47 BLT-DD The delivery of the BLT-DD benefit is entirely managed by the village government, and in the study areas, it is typically dispensed in cash at the village office. Delivery occurs approximately once every two or three months in alignment with the phases of village fund transfers from central to village government. Residents from remote hamlets encounter difficulties accessing the village office, where the transfers are distributed. In the villages in the two study locations in Bengkulu Utara, there are hamlets that are a two- hour drive away from the village office. A similar situation is found in Donggala and SBB. The Dinas PMD is not tasked with overseeing the delivery of BLT-DD benefits to participants, as “People were aware that their money was not this responsibility rests with the village. However, being distributed, but they hesitated to report decentralizing the disbursement process to the village it. Some did inquire about their entitlements level opens the door to potential misappropriation. for the last three months in 2020, but I could In 2020, BLT-DD funds in one of the villages in SBB only respond that I was unaware since it were not distributed, under the leadership of the wasn’t during my tenure.” then village head, who is no longer in office. The case went unreported, as no one brought it to attention. The potential for misappropriation can be higher in remote areas where surveillance is weaker. Interview with sub-district staff in SBB. BPJS Employment BPJS Employment benefits can be accessed when a claim is submitted due to an accident or the death of a participant. The process of submitting a claim is convenient and can be completed via an online submission or in-person by visiting the nearest BPJS Employment office. Claim submission procedures are well-defined and uniformly applied across Indonesia, without distinct provisions for remote areas. However, the absence of customized claim provisions poses challenges for participants who have poor connectivity in remote areas. Participants in remote areas who need to or prefer to claim in person find the process itself manageable, but often need to invest considerable time to travel to the nearest BPJS Employment office (typically located in a district city). In an FGD conducted in North Bengkulu, one participant reported that her relatives filed a JKM claim when her husband died. According to her, the claim submission went smoothly, even though her relative had to go to the BPJS-TK Office in the district city, three hours away by motorized vehicle. Two of FGD participants in Bengkulu Utara, both men, also said they filed JHT claims when they stopped working on a palm oil plantation around their village. Both stated that they did not experience any difficulties when making their claims. 48 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Challenges of delivering benefits to beneficiaries in remote areas Challenges of delivering benefits to beneficiaries in remote areas • PKH and Program Sembako make no special provisions for benefit delivery in remote areas. • PKH and Program Requiring Sembakoin beneficiaries make no special remote areas toprovisions for benefit collect benefits delivery at the in remote poses areas. post office challenges, as these offices arebeneficiaries Requiring in remote typically situated in theareas collect (and to center district benefits someat in the post office various poses challenges, sub-districts), as at a often located these offices are considerable typically distance from situated remotein the district center (and some in various sub-districts), often villages. located There isat a considerable a risk distance that information fromoffice on post remote villages. payment schedules sent through established channels may There risk that information is a beneficiaries not reach in remote post office onareas due to payment schedules sent limited connectivity through in these established channels areas. may not reach beneficiaries in remote Long queues may occur during post office delivery services in villages, especially areas. areas due to limited connectivity in these when a single post officequeues Long may occur serves multiple during villages inpost office delivery services in villages, especially when a single post a day. office serves multiple villages in a day. • Disbursing BLT-DD benefits to beneficiaries faces minimal challenges in remote areas, as it is managed directly • Disbursing by the villageBLT-DD benefitswith government to beneficiaries an operational faces minimal budget challenges allocated for thisinpurpose. remote areas, as it is managed Nevertheless, beneficiaries directly face long by the village travel distances government and time to with an operational collect payments due budget allocated to the reliancefor on this cashpurpose. Nevertheless, delivery at offices that are often located face beneficiaries longbeneficiary far from travel distances and time households. to collect payments Furthermore, the lack ofdue to the reliance adequate on cash monitoring delivery in these remote at offices villages thatup opens are theoften for far located potential from beneficiary misappropriation households. of funds Furthermore, by the village the lack of adequate government. monitoring in these remote villages opens up the potential for misappropriation of funds by the village • Poor connectivity and difficulty navigating online processes hampers access to BPJS Employment benefits in government. remote areas. The online modality of the claim process should, in theory, simplify the process, as it eliminates • Poor connectivity the need and difficulty for participants navigating to visit the BPJS online branch processes hampers office, which access to is usually BPJS Employment located in the districtbenefits center or in remote areas. neighboring The However, districts. online modality of the in remote claim areas process this process should, in theory, is impeded simplify by a lack the process, of familiarity withas it online eliminates procedures, the need and for participants limited to visit the BPJS branch office, which is usually located in the district internet connections. center or neighboring districts. However, in remote areas this process is impeded by a lack of familiarity with online procedures, and limited internet connections. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 49 4 Conclusion and Recommendations 4 4.1 Conclusion This study examines the obstacles encountered by impoverished families living in remote areas as they seek access to a range of Social Protection programs. The study sites were selected in areas that are distant from the district or provincial center. The findings outlined in the previous sections capture the conditions observed in locations classified as remote in Indonesia. It is worth noting that some challenges identified relate to issues across the delivery chain of programs, which could be experienced in non- remote locations. The extent to which Social Protection programs succeed in reaching people in need in remote areas is significantly influenced by the capacity of subnational governments. Challenges with implementation capacity in remote locations arise due to limited human resources, inadequate operational budgets, and poor infrastructure. Implementation capacity is also closely linked to the degree to which local government staff understand the processes, procedures, regulations, and essential considerations that are crucial for the successful implementation of programs. This limited understanding of program procedures and regulations contributes to communication challenges which hinder the delivery of clear information to beneficiaries. At both district and village levels, capacity constraints hamper implementers’ ability to collect data to update social registry data, which is a crucial step in identifying individuals who are eligible for non-contributory Social Protection. These challenges are further compounded by the geographical constraints faced in remote areas, communication connectivity issues, and the absence of comprehensive assessments regarding the conditions of these locations. These factors impede program implementers’ ability to formulate effective outreach strategies that are tailored to addressing the challenges faced in these remote locations. The study found significant variations between the national programs that were assessed, particularly PKH and Program Sembako, which heavily depend on the involvement of local implementers. Both PKH and Program Sembako operate nationwide, following procedures and policies that are established by the central government. While the effective implementation of these programs at the subnational level is expected to involve substantial contributions from local governments; local governments often perceive that they lack autonomy, which impedes their capacity to enhance program implementation. This research also uncovered unique aspects concerning programs managed under the autonomy of local governments, such as BLT-DD, which empowers villages to manage their resources. In this case, inadequate supervision has led to certain weaknesses in the program’s implementation. Finally, on social security, the study found that while BPJS Employment recognizes the need to expand coverage in rural and remote areas, these efforts are constrained by, inter-alia, data, connectivity, and staffing issues. The table presented below provides a graphical summary of the key findings. Additional details, including findings not specific to remote areas, can be found in Annex B. 50 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Table 9 Summary of Findings PKH Sembako BLT-DD BPJS Employment Coverage No specific data No specific data The coverage is Existence of awareness collection on collection on program determined by the and strategy to expand program coverage in coverage in remote amount of village coverage in rural areas. remote areas. areas. funds. Coverage data is not disaggregated between remote and non-remote areas Outreach and communication Less frequent visits Dinsos and TKSK Not all village Strategy to to remote locations. visits are limited due governments collaborate with LGs to long distances to understand program and Perisai agents to Limited information remote areas. regulations, which has expand the outreach channels e.g. implications for how online methods Limited awareness of this is communicated due to unreliable BPJS employment in to households. connectivity. remote areas Absence of an outreach and communication strategy for remote locations Intake procedure and process Limited on-demand options for program intake. Concerns about Insufficient subjectivity of intake resources to do Remote villages lack adequate information about the decisions. intake processes in necessity of DTKS updates, as Dinsos prioritizes villages rural and remote near the district center. areas. Limited internet connection in remote locations hampers access to the SIKS-NG to support intake processes Low-income families in remote areas lack sufficient information and on-demand options for intake Assessment of needs Although a remote-area Lacks a dedicated assessment specific strategy, PKH for remote areas, relying on AKSES has not evolved internal evaluations; however, it since its introduction has resulted in key strategies to Insufficient resources to conduct verification and expand rural coverage validation of updated data, esp. in remote areas Assessment of needs and conditions not tailored to remote locations Benefit delivery Information on payment schedules may not reach Limited monitoring Unfamiliarity remote beneficiaries due to limited communication in remote villages with online claim connectivity. raises concerns about procedures and poor Beneficiaries may face long queues during benefit potential fraud. internet access. delivery in village by post office. Beneficiaries in remote areas often have to travel considerable distances to collect cash payments or to file claims Benefit delivery and monitoring not tailored to remote locations Uptake capacity PKH still faces Limited staff (Dinsos Limited staff to BPJS offices outside shortage of and TKSK) leads to monitor program Java have a staffing facilitators in infrequent visits to implementation level of only 70%. remote areas. remote areas. especially to remote areas. Limited Dinsos budget to monitor implementation, especially in remote areas. Uptake capacity in remote areas is constrained by limited human and financial resource constraints, and weak supporting infrastructure Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 51 4.2 Recommendations The recommendations set out in the table below focus on enhancing access to Social Protection programs for impoverished individuals in remote areas. Some suggestions may also contribute to the overall improvement of the program more broadly and are flagged as general recommendations. Combined, addressing these recommendations should help improve overall Social Protection inclusion and delivery in remote areas. Finally, it is important to flag that effectively operationalizing these recommendations will optimally involve multi-sectoral engagement by Government to develop detailed action plans around each delivery chain challenge. This could be a possible follow-up step to putting these recommendations into action. Table 10 Emerging recommendations for remote areas Main issues Recommendation Coverage • Inability to disaggregate • Ensure that program administrative data are disaggregated to household-survey and program the village level and distinguish between remote and non-remote administrative data for remote locations, making it possible to analyze coverage gaps in remote and non-remote areas, making locations. it harder to assess coverage • The Government could utilize IKG data to identify remote and non- issues over a wider scope remote villages. Subsequently, this information can be compared or with greater precision to with program coverage in each village to analyze and address any GENERAL inform policy and program-level gaps in coverage. decisions. • Enhance the SIKS-NG app by incorporating features that simplify the process for district/sub-district/village staff to download data on program coverage. This modification would aim to facilitate quick data analysis, particularly concerning program coverage in remote areas. • Subnational implementers lack • Conduct a comprehensive analysis specifically focusing on coverage a comprehensive understanding of beneficiaries in remote areas. SPECIFIC TO REMOTE AREAS of the challenges in remote • Provide knowledge-exchange and capacity building to subnational areas, resulting in an incomplete implementers in remote areas, with a focus on local socioeconomic focus on addressing the unique constraints and remote-specific strategies for improving delivery obstacles faced by these regions. and inclusion, with strong engagement at the village level. 52 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Main issues Recommendation Outreach and Communication • Communication and explanation • Develop and implement a robust communication strategy among of program procedures are program implementers and the community, acknowledging the generally lacking and become need for a dedicated and tailored approach to delivering program scarcer in remote areas. information in remote areas. • Eligible non-beneficiaries state • Provide clear and concise guidelines and training for program that they do not understand stakeholders to address confusion regarding existing and new who is eligible to receive regulations. Establish a centralized resource hub or communication assistance, citing a lack of clear channel to disseminate up-to-date information on procedures, GENERAL communication and information. ensuring that all stakeholders are well-informed about and aligned with the regulations. • Limited knowledge of program processes reflects challenges in • Foster an open and communicative environment by establishing accessing information through clear channels for inquiries and encouraging questions. This can be various channels, particularly achieved by offering training to PKH and village facilitators, TKSK, when compared to those living and Perisai agents, empowering them to actively handle inquiries in proximity to the district from non-beneficiaries. center. This difficulty extends to online searches due to limited internet connectivity. • Establishing outreach to remote • Carry-out communication needs assessments in remote areas to areas can be and often is better understand the enabling environment and infrastructure for overlooked due to the absence communications and outreach, as well as the methods households of a well-defined strategy in remote areas prefer for receiving information. This will ensure for implementation. The lack that any subsequent outreach and communications will be tailored of data on program (under) to the preferences and environment of the remote area. coverage in remote areas means • Strengthen the role of TKSK at sub-district level to enhance their that program implementers outreach in remote locations, including through ensuring they have underestimate the need to operational resources (such as vehicles, portable wireless hotspots, conduct specific outreach in and other devices). these locations. SPECIFIC TO REMOTE AREAS • Enhance stakeholder engagement in remote areas through village • Eligible individuals in remote discussions, stakeholder forums, and community meetings, and areas may feel hesitant to make ensuring representation of key vulnerable groups residing in inquiries about their eligibility remote areas such as indigenous people, persons with disabilities, for Social Protection due to women etc.80 It is also important to enhance engagement with cultural norms. networks such as religious and social groups with active operations in remote communities. • Leverage the communal aspect of payment days in remote areas as an opportunity to disseminate information on the program and to have on-site queries and assistance for beneficiaries. This can be a forum for beneficiaries to receive essential information about program design, implementation, grievance redress, and eligibility criteria, etc. • Explore innovative solutions to disseminate information in remote areas. This could include, where feasible the use of WhatsApp chatbots to field FAQs about SP program design and implementation, which can also direct users to appropriate contacts for their specific questions and program details, assuming internet access is available; satellite radio etc. 80 For example, the Information and Consultation Services Clinic - Female Household Head Empowerment (Klinik Layanan Informasi dan Kon- sultasi - Pemberdayaan Perempuan Kepala Keluarga (KLIK PEKKA)) project, which was initiated to increase access to Social Protection and public services for women and marginalized communities in Indonesia organized village- and district-level stakeholder forums to discuss strategies to increase access to Government service programs for marginalized communities. Village, sub-district, and district governments are actively involved in the implementation of KLIK PEKKA. They participate in village discussions, stakeholder forums, and meetings to discuss community issues and find solutions. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 53 Main issues Recommendation Intake Process • There is uncertainty about who to • Ensure that strengthened outreach and communications approach to apply and enroll for strategies include simplified and clear explanation of programs among potentially eligible non- intake processes. beneficiaries. • Improve and tailor on-demand approaches for dynamic • While dynamic intake has improved in intake, enabling households to apply for programs when recent years, particularly through the on- in need, and employing multiple intake mechanisms for demand registration for social assistance, doing so, including online, in-office, and on-request home intake processes remain largely supply- visits. driven, with local governments and local • Improve dynamism and freshness of socioeconomic data program staff responsible for identifying used to support intake processes and data verification and intake for programs. This practice is and validation for Social Protection programs, including subject to concerns about subjectivity through coordinating between MoSA and MoHA to issue and risks exclusion errors, particularly GENERAL joint regulations that require local governments (including when households lack awareness about village governments in remote locations) to update DTKS how to enroll in programs. regularly. • Data synchronization is limited to a • Enable offline data updates, with the option to upload predetermined schedule, which often subsequently when a connection is available. does not align with the unreliable connectivity in remote villages. • Increase awareness of, and access to, the SIKS-NG application in more villages and facilitate the creation of • Broadly, local social affairs offices village user accounts for updating data in the application face limitations with conducting the in all locations. This entails providing training sessions on verification and validation of updated effective application utilization. data, and in remote locations, it can be asserted that this process is virtually non- • Engage with local leaders, community groups, and existent. non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to disseminate information about ‘cek-bansos’. • Villages in remote areas lack sufficient • Enhance coordination between the Ministry of information regarding the necessity of Communication and Information Technology and local DTKS updates, with Dinsos giving priority governments to address internet access challenges in to villages near the district center in areas with poor signal quality. regard to initiating the updating process. • Equip Dinsos and TKSK at sub-district level with portable • The primary constraint in remote areas is connectivity tools, particularly in remote locations. associated with the need for an internet Enhance the involvement of Dinsos to provide support connection to access the SIKS-NG to villages in addressing this issue. Dinsos also need to SPECIFIC TO REMOTE AREAS application to update the DTKS. be strengthened to verify data updates carried out by villages. • The utilization of ‘cek-bansos’ by non- beneficiaries in remote locations is still • Build on the recommendations for improving outreach highly restricted, primarily because and communications to ensure improved understanding they are unfamiliar with the relevant of BPJS enrollment among non-salaried and informal information. Again, the challenge of sector workers in remote areas. These efforts should also limited information in remote areas include village government and other program staff that hinders the effective use of this tool. regularly interact with non-salaried workers in remote areas. • Meanwhile, BPJS Employment is constrained by limited resources to register participants in rural areas, primarily due to geographical challenges. • There is a lack of awareness the importance of BPJS enrollment among non-salaried and informal sector workers, who are prevalent in remote areas. 54 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Main issues Recommendation Assessment of Needs and Conditions • There is a need to improve and • Improve coordination among ministries overseeing update collection of, or use of, current databases to fulfil data interoperability requirements and socioeconomic data on households to ensure capture and regular update of data necessary GENERAL needed to assess household needs and to assess household needs and conditions. Thoroughly conditions and to determine appropriate consider the implications of data integration, aiming to benefit packages responsive to those minimize the exclusion of poor families and maximize the needs for the main social assistance inclusion of new ones. programs, PKH and Sembako. • The current assessments for all four • Adapt program criteria for assessment of needs and programs, which aims to enhance conditions to consider constraints in remote areas. This implementation, primarily focus on may also require addressing diverse conditions in remote general program procedures, and lack areas across the country, as the poverty constraints in specific considerations for remote areas. each location are heterogenous, while poverty conditions The recent program changes have been among households in each location may be largely implemented universally across all homogeneous. locations, without specific consideration • Carry-out a detailed process evaluation and program of remote areas. review of PKH Akses to assess its current effectiveness SPECIFIC TO REMOTE AREAS • Poverty conditions in remote areas are for responding to household needs and conditions in largely homogeneous and assessment of remote areas. This assessment should also assess PKH needs and conditions are not sufficiently implementation across all delivery processes. The end tailored to the unique conditions of result of this assessment should ideally be an update of households in remote areas. PKH Akses that is better tailored to current needs and conditions in remote areas. • PKH Akses has not evolved since its introduction. • Increase program implementers’ awareness of mechanisms to effectiveness assess household needs and • BPJS also lacks a dedicated assessment conditions, address implementation obstacles in remote for remote areas, conducting only areas, and effectively inform and train them on any internal evaluation; however, routine adaptations made to program procedures. internal evaluations have yielded key strategies to broaden coverage in • Consider the challenges identified in remote areas rural areas. These strategies include in this study, encompassing coverage, outreach and collaborating with Perisai agents and communication, intake procedures, uptake capacity, and ensuring a more equitable distribution of benefit delivery. These findings can be utilized to enhance resources to areas beyond Java. support for remote locations. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 55 Main issues Recommendation Uptake Capacity • Program Sembako lacks external support • Consider streamlining household monitoring for poor as it relies solely on district government households that receive MoSA-managed benefits such as staff, which presents challenges in PKH and Program Sembako, leveraging PKH facilitators and GENERAL overseeing implementation due to TKSK in an integrated way that allows for a household- competing priorities. approach to supporting beneficiary families, versus a program-by-program approach for beneficiary monitoring. This is a very common social work approach, which allows household interventions to be better coordinated and linked to family development goals. • Limited human resources are available • Improve the quantity and quality of human resources, to effectively support program budgets, and other infrastructure needed for effective implementation and monitoring in Social Protection program delivery in remote areas. This remote areas, with staff to beneficiary applies to both Dinsos for the implementation of PKH and ratios extremely high in these locations, Program Sembako, the Dinas PMD for BLT-DD, and BPJS and further constrained by responsibility branch offices for employment insurance. These strategies for multiple locations across far distances. include the following: • Limited operational budgets impede • Improve human resources / staffing availability in remote program implementation and monitoring areas, reducing staff to beneficiary ratios to acceptable in remote areas. levels necessary for effective beneficiary monitoring. Consider building on lessons learned from efforts to • Inadequate infrastructure, limited improve uptake capacity in other sectors, which have mobility facilities, poor internet demonstrated success in deploying human resources in connectivity, and a lack of essential remote areas.81 services further constrain uptake capacity in remote areas. • Dinsos should enhance the role of TKSK at the sub-district level to assist in the implementation and monitoring of SPECIFIC TO REMOTE AREAS programs. • BPJS should broaden its partnerships with local organizations, employing a method similar to the use of Perisai agents, to expedite the expansion of coverage in rural and remote areas. • Consider partnering with local representatives in remote villages to act as points of contact for the program in the absence of program staff. These people could be useful intermediaries between program staff when not physically present in villages. • Increase program budgets in remote areas and explore possible sustainable financing models for Social Protection program delivery in remote areas. These include increasing monitoring budgets in remote areas, including for PKH Akses; and providing additional resources to staff to help improve their uptake capacity (e.g., more vehicles, and other transport mechanisms tailored to transport networks in each remote area; satellite connectivity tools to ensure connectivity when in the field, etc.) • Prioritize advocacy to establish coordinated approaches across Government to improve constraints to effective update capacity in remote areas, including improving road networks, public transportation options, internet, and phone connectivity, etc. 81 81 For example, the Nusantara Sehat Program is a healthcare initiative that sends medical professionals to rural areas lacking adequate care. It involves hiring and sending healthcare professionals, setting up health facilities, and using mobile clinics for outreach services. The program also provides training to local healthcare workers, promotes health education, and collaborates with local governments and NGOs to ensure success- ful healthcare services. 56 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Main issues Recommendation Benefit Delivery • Long queues may occur during benefit • Conduct a comprehensive assessment of the advantages delivery at post offices in villages, and disadvantages of the current delivery methods — especially when a single post office serves banks and post offices. multiple villages in a day. • MoSA should collaborate with post offices to explore • Some beneficiaries have expressed the potential for offering more frequent village delivery GENERAL preference for bank payment versus post services, aiming to alleviate long queues and minimize the office payment, and lamented lack of need for beneficiaries to visit the post office at the district choice in the process. level. • Provide social assistance beneficiaries with a choice of the payment delivery option that best suits their conditions (a best practice in social assistance payment delivery). • Social Protection beneficiaries in remote • Develop a hybrid approach or implement improvements areas face longer commutes when to enhance the accessibility of benefit delivery for required to collect their benefits or file beneficiaries in remote areas and promote beneficiary their claims in person. This includes the choice to select their preferred method of payment requirement to collect payments at post- delivery suitable for the conditions in the remote area in offices for PKH and Sembako, at village which they live. offices for BLT-DD recipients, and to file • Improve communication and information dissemination BPJS claims in-office when not feasible on payment schedules and locations to PKH and Sembako online. beneficiaries in remote areas. This should optimally rely • There is no distinction in benefit delivery on multiple communications channels, with less reliance SPECIFIC TO REMOTE AREAS between remote and non-remote areas on facilitator communications, utilization of technologies for the PKH and Program Sembako. such as direct WhatsApp or text message broadcasts etc. • The distribution of information • Dinas PMD should improve its monitoring of remote concerning payment schedules for villages to prevent the misappropriation of payments to PKH and Sembako from the post office beneficiaries. through established channels sometimes • BPJS should conduct an in-depth assessment of the does not reach beneficiaries in remote demand for online claims in rural areas and formulate a areas, which is attributed to limited strategy to facilitate this process. Linked to this, BPJS could communication connectivity in these consider simplifying or better tailoring the claims filing regions. process in remote areas. Options that can be leveraged in • For BLT-DD, the lack of adequate addition to online filing (which is constrained by limited monitoring in these remote villages internet connectivity), could include expanding the role opens the potential for misappropriation of Perisai agents to include claim facilitation, providing of funds by the village government. access to call centers to assist with filing claims; and mobile units that visit remote villages on set days to assist • In remote areas, the claim process for with filing claims and disseminating information, intake BPJS Employment participants is impeded etc. These will reduce the need for lengthy commutes to by unfamiliarity with online procedures offices to file claims. and limited internet connections. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 57 Bibliography Banerjee, A., Hanna, R., Olken, B. A., Satriawan, E., and Sumarto, S. (2021). Food vs. food stamps: Evidence from an at-scale experiment in Indonesia (No. w28641). National Bureau of Economic Research. BPJS (2021). Laporan Terintegrasi 2021: Transformasi Digital untuk Tingkatkan Layanan Unggul. Davis, B., and Pozarny, P. (2012). Qualitative research and analyses of the economic impacts of cash transfer programmes in sub-Saharan Africa. Hadiwidjaja, Gracia; Williams, Asha; and Giannozzi, Sara. 2022. Improving Data Quality for an Effective Social Registry in Indonesia. The World Bank. IDEO. (2015). The field guide to human-centered design: Design kit. Kind, M., and Lee, Y.F. (2021) Social Protection in rural areas: achieving universal access for all. Policy Brief No 107. UN DESA. Larasati, D., R.S. Milawati, and D. Nugroho (2022). Maintaining and Expanding Membership as an Effort to Ensure the Sustainability of the Social Insurance for Employment Program. TNP2K; Jakarta. MicroSave Consulting (2019). Report on operations assessment and impact evaluation of Program Keluarga Harapan (PKH). Ministry of Social Affairs (2021). Family Hope Program Knowledge and Policies in 2021. OECD (2019). Social Protection System Review of Indonesia, OECD Development Pathways, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/788e9d71-en Ralston and Tiwari (2020). No One Left Behind: Rural Poverty in Indonesia, The World Bank Sengupta, S., Tsuruga, I., Dankmeyer, C. (2023). Social insurance and climate change in Indonesia: Implications for Adaptive Social Protection Ambitions. International Labour Organization, Jakarta. TNP2K (2018). The future of the Social Protection system in Indonesia: Social Protection for all. Office of the Vice President of the Republic of Indonesia. TNP2K (2019). Improving Health of the Left-Behinds: The Case of Indonesia’s Nusantara Sehat: A Quantitative Evaluation Study. Office of the Vice President of the Republic of Indonesia. TNP2K (2022). Hasil Kajian Cakupan Penerima Manfaat pada Anak Usia Balita di 3 Kabupaten di Indonesia World Bank (2020). Investing in People: Social Protection for Indonesia’s 2045 Vision. Jakarta, World Bank World Bank (2023). Indonesia Poverty Assessment – Pathways Towards Economic Security. World Bank, Washington DC. World Bank (2023). Early Experiences of Beneficiary Choice in Government-to-Person Payment Architecture in Indonesia. World Bank, Washington DC. Yon, Kwan Men, Darmawan, Leni, et.al., (2022). Governance and Distribution of Village Funds Cash Assistance (BLT-DD). KOMPAK, Jakarta. 58 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Online news articles Antaranews. (2018). Penerima PKH di Daerah 3T akan dapat bantuan tambahan Rp 1 Juta Mulai 2019. Accessible from: https://sumbar.antaranews.com/berita/235387/penerima-pkh-di-daerah-3t-akan- dapat-bantuan-tambahan-rp1-juta-mulai-2019 Komisi IX Soroti Akurasi Pengelolaan Data PBI-JKN BPJS Kesehatan, 24th November 2021. https://www. dpr.go.id/berita/detail/id/36074/t/javascript; https://ambalresmi.kec-ambal.kebumenkab.go.id/index.php/web/artikel/4/425; https://pemberdayaan. kulonprogokab.go.id/detil/1077/tahapan-selanjutnya-pembukaan-rekening-calon-penerima-blt-dd www.bpjsketenagakerjaan.go.id/berita/28507/BPJS-Ketenagakerjaan-Launching-KKBC-Masuk-Desa; https://mediaindonesia.com/megapolitan/596557/bpjs-ketenagakerjaan-sosialisasikan-program- kkbc-di-lima-kelurahan Yayasan PEKKA and World Bank (2023). KLIK PEKKA: Increasing access to Social Protection and public services for women and marginalized communities, Program Final Report Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 59 Annex A Complete Research Questions Main research question Sub-questions Method of data collection Area of inquiry : Coverage (to determine the actual coverage in the remote area) • To what extent is the • What is the reach of each social protection • Secondary household survey program able to reach program? data (national level) poor households in rural • What is the geographical coverage of the • Secondary data from the and remote areas? program? program implementer (district • Who is being included and village level, if available) • Is the program implementer equipped with and excluded from the current data on program beneficiaries? And • KIIs with program implementers program in these remote what type of data? areas? • How many eligible participants are • What are coverage rates estimated to be in the remote area? and trends over time? • How many are participating in the program? • Why do certain eligible individuals join the program while others do not? What are the barriers preventing their participation? Area of inquiry : Outreach (to ascertain the measures being taken to inform and facilitate program access for populations in remote areas) • How is the dissemination • What are program implementers’ • Documents review of information conducted understanding of the social protection • KII with program implementers in each program? programs implemented in their areas? • In-depth interviews and FGDs • Are there outreach efforts • How aware are poor households/ with beneficiary and non- targeting vulnerable or individuals in remote areas about the social beneficiary households marginalized populations protection program? in remote areas? • Do the program implementers recognize the significance of reaching poor households/individuals in remote areas? • What are the communication channels used to disseminate information about the program? • How effective are the outreach strategies and communication materials in reaching the poor households/individuals in remote areas? 60 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Main research question Sub-questions Method of data collection Area of inquiry : Intake (to understand the enrollment and registration procedures and processes applied in the program) • To what extent are the • Do program implementers have written • Documents review program eligibility criteria guidelines for enrollment and registration? • KIIs with program implementers clear and understandable? • What are the administrative requirements • In-depth interviews and FGDs • How is enrollment and and procedures for program enrollment? with beneficiary and non- registration carried out? • Are the enrollment and registration beneficiary households • Are there any special procedures carried out in accordance with efforts being made to the written procedures? reach the population in • Are there variations in the registration remote locations? process that account for the challenges faced in remote areas? Is there any element of flexibility incorporated in this regard? • What data do the program implementers use in the enrollment and registration process? • Do households and individuals in remote areas understand the eligibility criteria of the program (who can and cannot participate in the program)? • Is the intake process designed to accommodate people in rural and remote locations? • Is the intake process designed to accommodate diverse user needs (including those with disabilities, low literacy levels, limited digital literacy, etc.)? • Are there support services available to assist applicants during this process? Area of inquiry : Assessment of needs and conditions (to identify the process of assessing needs and determining requirements) • What methods does the • How are the needs of the target population • Documents review program use to identify identified and assessed? • KIIs with program implementers the needs of impoverished • Are the needs assessments comprehensive families/individuals in • In-depth interviews and FGDs and inclusive? remote areas? with beneficiary and non- • Does meeting the program requirements beneficiary households • How well do the program’s create additional costs / pose challenges services align with for poor households/individuals in remote identified needs? areas to meet? • What are the conditions or requirements attached to accessing the program? Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 61 Main research question Sub-questions Method of data collection Area of inquiry : Uptake capacity (to understand the capability of program implementers in regard to executing the program) • What are the factors • Who is involved in program implementation • Documents review influencing the uptake of at various levels? • KIIs with program implementers the program? • What is the program implementers’ • In-depth interviews and FGDs • Do program implementers capacity to execute the program given with beneficiary and non- possess sufficient the remote context (including human and beneficiary households resources to fulfill their financial resources)? responsibilities? • To what extent does lack of implementation capacity constitute a barrier to beneficiary uptake? • Are there strategies in place to enhance program uptake and enrollment in remote locations? • How does the program address the needs of hard-to-reach populations? Area of inquiry : Benefit delivery (to understand how the program provides benefits and how beneficiaries access them, taking into account any obstacles encountered) • What methods does the • Are there tailored services provided by the • Document review program employ to deliver program to help beneficiaries in remote • KIIs with program implementers benefits to beneficiaries? areas to access program benefits? • In-depth interviews and FGDs • How do registered • Do beneficiaries face any challenges when with beneficiary and non- households / individuals accessing their entitled benefits? beneficiary households access program benefits • Does awareness and understanding of once they are enrolled? program benefits enable beneficiaries to navigate their entitled rights more effectively? (e.g., benefit value, distribution frequency, the need for intermediaries, etc.) 62 Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges Annex B Summary of Findings Area of inquiry PKH Program Sembako BLT-DD BPJS employment Coverage There is no specific attention given to beneficiaries’ coverage in remote areas for these three programs. The approach BPJS branch offices are fully aware of coverage applied to remote areas is identical to that applied to other regions, and program implementers have never sought to issues in rural areas and informal sectors, identify potential issues with social protection program coverage in these areas. because this is part of their national strategy to increase coverage in these areas and sectors. After acquiring data on beneficiary coverage in the remote villages under study, it was observed that there is no distinct pattern indicating that beneficiary coverage in remote areas is more restricted than in other locations. The study could not comprehensively assess coverage issues in remote areas. Information regarding coverage can be Dinsos struggles to promptly deliver Dinas PMD and village offices both Membership data are presented in an aggregate acquired from the PKH coordinator, who the program’s coverage data, possess program coverage data, as this form at the regional level, with no breakdown for remains the primary source for data suggesting difficulties in accessing it information is crucial for the proper sub-districts and villages. Some branch offices collection within the Dinsos. through SIKS-NG and reflecting a lack disbursement of village funds. manage multiple districts, and the data they of urgency or interest in obtaining this have represent a consolidation of data from the information. districts under their jurisdiction. Outreach and In general, subnational program implementers understand the broad objectives and eligible recipients of the Social BPJS Employment branch office staff understand Communication Protection program, yet confusion arises regarding specific procedures in existing and new regulations to which subnational the objective of this social insurance, recognizing stakeholders must refer. the importance of reaching residents in remote areas and the informal sector. Almost all program implementers indicated that they do not possess a specific strategy for disseminating information to the community, let alone a dedicated strategy for remote areas. Non-beneficiaries who believe they should be registered with DTKS hesitate to assert their rights. This hesitation is compounded by a lack of clarity about whom to contact for inquiries regarding the registration procedures. PKH facilitators face challenges in Dinsos depends more on the support Village governments are uncertain BPJS Employment employs a well-defined understanding new procedures, including of sub-district social welfare workers about BLT-DD regulations, particularly strategy, which includes collaborating with local the omission of pre-list data validation, to disseminate information to the in regard to recipient selection, as they governments to register rural and vulnerable the discontinuation of e-PKH and the community at the village level. struggle with criteria due to perceived workers. This involves using Perisai agents as transition to the SIKS mobile app. uniform living conditions. an extension of their outreach efforts, who Changes to program procedures, aiming are recruited through partnerships with local to involve local governments more, organizations. They also collaborate with banks to are at the planning stages, but many register a significant portion of SMEs. facilitators still lack full understanding, and current guidelines are outdated. Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 63 64 Area of inquiry PKH Program Sembako BLT-DD BPJS employment Intake The current duty for updating DTKS data lies with Dinsos and village governments, Issues related to concerns about Despite successes in Donggala, there are Procedures and but not all local governments perform this task diligently, and MoSA lacks the subjectivity and bias, unsuitable challenges in reaching villages due to Processes authority to compel regions, as local governments fall under MoHA oversight. poverty criteria for the local context, geographical obstacles and limited awareness and the need to utilize the full budget among village governments and residents about Numerous challenges persist in updating DTKS data to identify potential allocation hinder the utilization of social security. The BPJS Employment office, with beneficiaries, including issues such as villages lacking access to SIKS-NG, low levels village funds for BLT-DD. minimal personnel covering extensive regions, of awareness about DTKS and its updating requirements, insufficient internet faces difficulties in ensuring effective outreach to connectivity, a limited budget for verification and validation, concerns about remote villages. conflicts, the need for data synchronization at predefined schedules, and issues with the NIK and KK. Assessment As a national program, the central Similar to PKH, the assessment of the No specific studies focus on Ongoing internal evaluations at BPJS Employment of Needs and government conducts an assessment Program Sembako is conducted by implementing BLT-DD in remote Head Office aim to expand rural and informal Conditions of program needs, which in the past the central government. However, areas. At the village level, proactive sector coverage. Disparities between Java and has led to various changes, such as the unlike PKH, Program Sembako does planning occurs to distribute BLT-DD other regions in human resources have been introduction of a special PKH Akses not have a specific policy tailored for without causing unrest. Local policies identified, prompting efforts to address staffing category for remote areas. However, the remote locations. Some of the new aim to ensure equitable distribution, shortages in remote areas. Challenges persist in current assessment primarily focuses on policies that apply universally may not considering additional criteria for reaching potential informal sector participants in overall program procedures and lacks be entirely advantageous for remote poverty assessment due to perceived rural and remote areas. specific considerations for remote areas. areas. inadequacies in centrally set criteria. Uptake capacity PKH benefits from a robust pool of The Program Sembako lacks external Village facilitators may encounter BPJS Employment offices outside Java face staff coordinators and facilitators across support, relying mostly on district and difficulties when tasked with shortages, meeting only about 70 percent of the Indonesia. However, there is a noticeable sub-district staff. overseeing a sub-district that required workforce shortfall in facilitators, especially in hard- encompasses a large number of to-reach areas. villages. The budget allocated to the Dinsos is seen as a hindrance to effectively monitoring No budget issues seen in BLT-DD the national social protection programs. implementation, as it is entirely managed by the village authorities. Benefit delivery Two delivery methods are currently in use, banks, and post offices. Each modality Despite fund distribution occurring at Lack of specialized claim submission for remote has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. the village offices, residents in remote areas poses challenges for residents in distant hamlets face difficulties accessing villages. BPJS Employment offices are typically it. The Dinas PMD is not responsible located in district cities, far from these villages. for overseeing BLT-DD disbursement, Online claim submission is hindered by a lack of Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges and there have been some reports of familiarity with procedures and poor internet misappropriation. access. Annex C Poverty headcount rates in the study districts Percentage of population living below the national poverty line District 2020 2021 2022 2023 Bengkulu Utara 11.7 11.6 11.5 - Donggala - 16.7 16.3 16.3 Seram Bagian Barat 25.1 25.3 22.3 - Sources: • Bengkulu Utara: https://bengkuluutarakab.bps.go.id/indicator/23/34/1/kemiskinan.html • Donggala.https://sulteng.bps.go.id/indicator/23/90/1/persentase-penduduk-miskin-p0-menurut-kabupaten-kota.html • Seram Bag Barat: https://www.bps.go.id/en/statistics-table/2/NjIxIzI=/percentage-of-population-living-below-the-national-poverty-line-by- regency-municipality.html Social Protection Inclusion in Indonesia’s Remote Areas - Identifying and Addressing Gaps & Challenges 65